Full text of "Dictionary of the Bible; comprising its antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history. Rev. and edited by H.B. Hackett, with the coöperation of Ezra Abbot"

Presented to the
LIBRARY of the

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

ESTATE 0^ THE LATE
MARY SINCLAIR

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2008 with funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/dictionaryofbibl04smituoft

DR. WILLIAM SMITH'S

DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;

COMPRISING ITS

ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY,
AND NATURAL HISTORY.

REVISED AND EDITED BY

PROFESSOR H. B. HACKETT, D. D.

AVaTH THE CO'OPERATION OF

EZRA ABBOT, LL.D.

ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN OF HARVARD COLLEGE.

VOLUME IV.
REGEM-MELECH to ZUZIMS.

Jerusalem.

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY HURD AND HOUGHTON.

Cambribge: fiioersiire IJresa.

1870.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by

HuRD AND Houghton,
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

m< 2 5 1966

s;ty of 10

lopm

RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:

STBREOTYPKD AND PRINTED BY

H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.

WRITERS IN THE ENGLISH EDITION.

. T.

DnriAUS. NAMES.

H. A. Very Rev. Henry Alfqrd, D. D., Dean of Canterbury.

H. B. Rev. Henry Bailey, B. D., Warden of St. Augustine's College, Can-

terbury ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.

H. B. Rev. HoRATius Bonar, D. D., Kelso, N. B. ; Author of " The Land

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

A. B. Rev. Alfred Barry, B. D., Principal of Cheltenham College ; late

Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.

W. L. B. Rev. William Latham Bevan, M. A., Vicar of Hay, Brecknock-
shire.

J. W. B. Rev. Joseph Williams Blakesley, B. D., Canon of Canterbury ; late
Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge.

T. E. B. Rev. Thomas Edward Brown, M. A., Vice-Principal of King Wil-
liam's College, Isle of Man ; late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.
Ven. Robert AVilliam Browne, M. A., Archdeacon of Bath, and

Canon of Wells.
Right Rev. Edward Harold Browne, D. D., Lord Bishop of Ely.
Rev. William Thomas Bullock, M. A., Assistant Secretary of the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.

S. C. Rev. Samuel Clark, M. A., Vicar of Bredwardine with Brobury,

Herefordshire.

F. C. C. Rev. Frederic Charles Cook, M. A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the

Queen.

G. E. L. C. Right Rev. George Edward Lynch Cotton, D. D., late Lord Bishop

of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India.
J. LI. D. Rev. John Llewelyn Da vies, M. A., Rector of Christ Church,

Marylebone ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
G. E. D. Prof George Edward Day, D. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
E. D. Emanuel Deutsch, M. R. A. S., British Museum.

W. D. Rev. William Drake, M. A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen.

E. P. E. Rev. Edward Paroissien Eddrup, M. A., Principal of the Theolog-

ical College, Salisbury.
C. J. E. Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, D. D., Lord Bishop of Glouces-
ter and Bristol.

F. W. F. Rev. Frederick William Farrar, M. A., Assistant Master of Haj>

row School ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.

J. F. James Fergusson, F. R. S., F. R. A. S., Fellow of the Royal Insti-

tute of British Architects.

E. S. Ff Edward Salusbury Ffoulkes, M. A., late Fellow of Jesus College,
Oxford.

W. F. Right Rev. William Fitzgerald, D. D., Lord Bishop of Killaloe.

(iii)

DfrriAW

H-

-s.

J. H.

. H

s. :

. B.

J. B. L.

W. M.

Oppekt.

K 0.

J. 0.

J. S. P.

T. P.

W. P.

H. P.

S. P.

L. P.

ipels H

LIST OF WRITERS.

Rev. Francis Garden, M. A., Subdean of Her Majesty's Chapels
Royal.

Rev. F. William Gotch, I^L. D., President of the Baptist College,
Bristol ; late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London.

George Grove, Crystal Palace, Sydenham.

Prof Horatio Balcii Hackett, D. D., LL. D., Theological Institu-
tion, Newton, Mass.

Rev. Ernest Hawkins, B. D., Secretary of the Society for the Propa-
gation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.

Rev. Henry Hayman, B. D., Head Master of the Grammar School,
Cheltenham ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford.

Ven. Lord Arthur Charles Hervey, M. A., Archdeacon of Sud-
bury, and Rector of Jckworth.

Rev. James Augustus Hessey, D. C. L., Head Master of Merchant
Taylors' School.

Joseph Dalton Hooker, M. D., F. R. S., Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew.

Rev. James John Hornby, M. A,, Fellow of Brasenose College, Ox-
ford ; Principal of Bishop Cosin's Hall.

Rev. William Houghton, M. A., F. L. S., Rector of Preston on the
Weald Moors, Salop.

Rev. John Saul Howson, D. D., Principal of the Collegiate Institu-
tion, Liverpool.

Rev. Edgar Huxtable, M. A., Subdean of Wells.

Rev. William Basil Jones, M. A., Prebendary of York and of St.
David's ; late Fellow and Tutor of University College, Oxford.

Austen Henry Layard, D. C. L., M. P.

Rev. Stanley Leathes, M. A., M. R. S. L., Hebrew Lecturer in
King's College, London.

Rev. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, D. D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity,
and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.

Rev. D. W. Marks, Professor of Hebrew in University College, London.

Rev. Frederick Meyrick, M. A., late Fellow and Tutor of Trinity
College, Oxford.

Prof Jules Oppert, of Paris.

Rev. Edward Redman Orger, M. A., Fellow and Tutor of St.
Auuustiue's College, Canterbury.

Ven. Thomas Johnson Ormerod, M. A., Archdeacon of Suffolk;
late Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford.

Rev. John James Stewart Perowne, B. D., Vice-Principal of St
David's College, Lampeter.

Rev. Thomas Thomason Perowne, B. D., Fellow and Tutor of
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

Rev. Henry Wright Phillott, M. A., Rector of Staunton-on-Wye,
Herefordshire ; late Student of Christ Church, Oxford.

Rev. Edward Hayes Plumptre, M. A., Professor of Divinity in
King's College, London.

Edward Stanley Poole, M. R. A. S., South Kensington Museum.

Reginald Stuart Poole, British Museum.

Rev. J. Leslie Porter, M. A., Professor of Sacred Literature, Assem

1
I

LIST OF WRITERS. v

□nriALS. NAMES.

bly^s College, Belfast ; Author of " Handbook of Syria and Palestine,"
and " Five Years in Damascus."

C. P. Rev. Charles Pritchard, M. A., F. R. S., Hon. Secretary of the

Royal Astronomical Society ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Cam-
bridge.

G. R. Rev. George Rawlinson, M. A., Camden Professor of Ancient His-

tory, Oxford.

H. J. R. Rev. Henry John Rose, B. D., Rural Dean, and Rector of Houghton
Conquest, Bedfordshire.

W. S. Rev. William Selwyn, D. D., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen ;

Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Ely.

A. P. S. Rev. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D. D., Regius Professor of Ecclesias-

tical History, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; Chaplain to His
Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

C. E. S. Prof. Calvin Ellis Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn.

J. P. T. Rev. Joseph Parrish Thompson, D. D., New York.

W. T. Most Rev. William Thomson, D. D., Lord Archbishop of York.

S. P. T. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL. D., Author of " An Introduction
to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament," &c.

H. B. T. Rev. Henry Baker Tristram, M. A., F. L. S., Master of Greatham
Hospital.

J. F. T. Rev. Joseph Francis Thrupp, M. A., Vicar of Barrington ; late Fel-
low of Trinity College, Cambridge.

E. T. Hon. Edward T. B. Twisleton, M. A., late Fellow of Balliol t!ollege,

Oxford.

E. V. Rev. Edmund Venables, M. A., Bonchurch, Isle of Wight.

B. F. W. Rev. Brooke Foss Westcott, M. A., Assistant Master of Han-ow

School ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.

C. W. Rev. Christopher Wordsworth, D. D., Canon of Westminster.

W. A. W. William Aldis Wright, M. A., Librarian of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge.

WRITERS IN THE AMERICAN EDITION.

A. Ezra Abbot, LL. D., Assistant Librarian of Harvard College,

Cambridge, Mass.
S. C. B. Prof Samuel Colcord Bartlett, D. D., Theol. Sem., Chicago, 111.
T. J. C. Rev. Thomas Jefferson Conant, D. D., Brooklyn, N. Y.
G. E. D. Prof George Edward Day, D. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
G. P. F. Prof George Park Fisher, D. D., Y'ale College, New Haven, Conn.
F. G. Prof. Frederic Gardiner, D. D., Middletown, Conn.

D. R. G. Rev. Daniel Raynes Goodwin, D. D., Provost of the University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
H. Prof Horatio Balch Hackett, D. D., LL. D., Theological Institti-

tion, Newton, Mass.
J. H. Prof. James Hadley, LL. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

F. W. H. Rev. Frederick Whitmore Holland, F. R. G. S., London.
A. H. Prof. Alvah Hovey, D. D., Theological Institution, Newton, Mass.

vl LIST OF WRITERS.

INITIALS. NAMES.

iV- C. K. Prof. AsAHEL Clark Kendrick, D. D., University of Rochester, N. Y,
C. M. M. Prof. Charles Marks Mead, Ph. D., Theol. Sem., Andover, Mass.
E. A. P. Prof. Edwards Amasa Park, D. D., Theol. Seminary, Andover, Masi
W. E. p. Rev. William Edwards Park, Andover, Mass.
A. P. P. Prof Andrew Preston Peabody, D. D., LL. D., Harvard College

Cambridge, Mass.
G. E. p. Rev. George E. Post, M. D., Tripoli, Syria.
R. D. C. R. Prof Rensselaer David Chanceford Robbins, Middlebury Col

lege, Vt.
P. S. Rev. Philip Schaff, D. D., New York.

H. B. S. Prof Henry Boynton Smith, D. D., LL. D., Union Theological

Seminary, New York. ^Hl

C. E. S. Rev. Calvin Ellis Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn. ^M

D. S. T. Prof Daniel Smith Talcott, D. D., Theol. Seminary, Bangor, Me.
J. H. T. Prof Joseph Henry Thayer, M. A., Theol. Seminary, Andover, Mass.
J. P. T. Rev. Joseph Parrish Thompson, D. D., New York.

C. y. A. V. Rev. Cornelius Y. A. Yan Dyck, D. D., Beirut, Syria. ^i

W. H. W. Rev. William Hayes Ward, M. A., New York. "

W. F. W. Prof William Fairfield Warren, D. D., Boston Theological Sem-
inary, Boston, Mass. ^M\
S. W. Rev. Samuel Wolcott, D. D., Cleveland, Ohio. V
T. D. W. President Theodore Dwight Woolsey, D. D., LL. D., Yale College,
New Haven, Conn. I_

%* The new portions in the present edition are indicated by a star (*), the edi-
torial additions being distinguished by the initials H. and A. Whatever is enclosed
in brackets is also, with unimportant exceptions, editorial. This remark, however,
does not apply to the cross-references in brackets, most of which belong to the origi-
nal work, though a large number have been added to this edition. "

ABBREVIATIONS.

Aid. The Aldine edition of the Septuagint, 1518.
Alex. The Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent.), edited by Baber, 1816-28.
A. Y. The authorized (common) English version of the Bible.
Comp. The Septuagint as printed in the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514-17, pubhshed
1522.

FA. The Codex Friderico-Augustanus (4th cent.), pubhshed by Tischendorf i
1846.

Rom. The Roman edition of the Septuagint, 1587. The readings of the Septuagi
for which no authority is specified are also from this source.

Sin. The Codex Sinaiticus (4tb cent.), published by Tischendorf in 1862. This
and FA. are parts of the same manuscript.

Vat. The Codex Yaticanus 1209 (4th cent.), according to Mai's edition, published
by Yercellone in 1857. " Yat. H." denotes readings of the MS. (difi'ering
from Mai), given in Holmes and Parsons's edition of the Septuagint, 1798-
1827. " Yat.^ " distinguishes the primary reading of the MS. from " Yat.^ J
or " 2. m.," the alteration of a later reviser.

DICTIONARY

BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY,
AND NATURAL HISTORY.

REGEM-MELECH

RE'GEM-ME'LECH (TtJ?? D?'^ [/Wem?
of the king] : [Apfiea-eep 6 fiaaiievs ; Alex. Ap-
fieaetrep o fi.' Rogommekch). The names of
Sherezer and Regem-nielech occur in an obscure
passage of Zecharlah (vii. 2). They were sent on
behalf of some of the Captivity to make inquiries
at the Temple concerning fasting. In the A. V.
the subject of the verse appears to be the captive
Jews in Babylon, and Bethel, or "the house of
God," is regarded as the accusative after the verb
of motion. The LXX. take "the king" as the
nominative to the verb "sent," considering the
last part of the name Regem-melech as an appel-
lative and not as a proper name. Again, in the
Vulgate, Sherezer, Regem-melech, and their men,
are the persons who sent to the house of God.
The Peshito-Syriac has a curious version of the
passage : " And he sent to Bethel, to Sharezer and
Rabmag; and the king sent and his men to pray
for him before the Lord: " Sharezer and Rabmag
being associated in Jer. xxxix. 3, 13. On refer-
ring to Zech. vii. 5, the expression " the people of
the land " seems to indicate that those who sent
to the Temple were not the captive Jews in Baby-
lon, but those who had returned to their own
country; and this being the case it is probable
that in ver. 2 " Bethel " is to be taken as the sub-
ject, " and Bethel, i. e. the inhabitants of Bethel,
sent."

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

REGION-ROUND-ABOUT, THE (^ ttc-
plxf^pos)- This term had perhaps originally a
more precise and independent meaning than it ap-
pears to a reader of the Authorized Version to

In the Old Test, it is used by the LXX. as
the equivalent of the singular Hebrew word hac-

Ciccnr ("iSSn, literally "the round"), a word
the topographical application of which is not clear,
but winch seems in its earliest occuiTences to de-
note the circle or oasis of cultivation in which
stood Sodom and Gomorrah and the rest of the
five "cities of the Ciccrt?- " (Gen. xiii. 10, 11, 12,
170

REHOB

xix. 17, 25,28,29; Deut. xxxiv. 3). Elsewhere
it has a wider meaning, though still attached to
the Jordan (2 Sam. xviii. 23; 1 K. vii. 46: 2 Chr,
iv. 17; Neh. iii. 22, xii. 28). It is in this less
restricted sense that irepixa^pos occurs in the New
Test. In Matt. iii. 5 and Luke iii. 3 it denotes
the populous and flourishing region which con-
tained the towns of Jericho and its dependencies,
in the Jordan Valley, inclosed in the amphitheatre
of the hills of Qmirantana (see Map, vol. ii. p.
664), a densely populated region, and important
enough to be reckoned as a distinct section of Pal-
estine — " Jerusalem, Judc-ea, and all the arron-
dhstment« of Jordan " (Matt. iii. 5, also Luke vii.
17). [JuDiEA, Wilderness OF, Amer. ed.] It
is also applied to the district of Gennesaret, a re-
gion which presents certain simUarities to that of
Jericho, being inclosed in the amphitheatre of the
hills of Hattin and bounded in front by the water
of the lake, as the other was by the Jordan, and
also resembling it in being very thickly populated
(Matt. xiv. 35; Mark vi. 55; Luke vi. 17, vii. 17).

REHABFAH (n;?n"j in 1 Chr. xxiii.;
elsewhere ^rT^lZinn \whom Jehovah enlarges]:
'Pafiid, [Vat.] Alex. Paafiia, in 1 Chr. xxiii.;
'PaojSias, 1 Chr. xxiv.; 'Pafiias, Alex. Paafiias,
1 Chr. xxvi.: Rohobia, Rahabia in 1 Chr. xxvi.).
The only son of li^liezer, the son of Moses, and
the father of Isshiah, or Jeshaiah (1 Chr. xxiii.
17, xxiv. 21, xxvi. 25). His descendants were
numerous.

RE'HOB (n'^nn [and ^nn, street, market-
place]: 'PacijS, ['Po(i$:] Rohob).' 1. The father
of Hadadezer king of Zobah, whom David smote
at the Euphrates (2 Sam. viii. 3, 12). Josephus
{Ant. vii. 5, § 1) calls him "Apdos, and the Old
Latin Version Arachus, and Blayney (on Zech. ix.
1) thinks this was his real name, and that he was
called Rehob,or "charioteer," from the number of
chariots in his possession. The name appears to
be peculiarly Syrian, for we find a district of Syria
called Rehob, or Beth-Rehob (2 Sara. x. 6, 8).

a Thus Jerome — "regiones in circuitu per quas
medius Jordanes fluit."

2698

KEHOB

2. CVowfi.) A Lovite, 01' family of Levites, who
sealed the covenant with Neheniiah (Neh. x. 11).

W. A. W.

RE'HOB (inh'n [as ahove]). The name of
wore than one place in the extreme north of the
Holy Land.

1. ([Kom. 'Po(Jj9; Vat.] PoajS ; Alex. Po«)8:
Jiohob.)" The northern limit of the exploration
of the spies (Nnm. xiii. 21). It is specified as
being "as men come unto Hamath," or, as the
phrase is elsewhere rendered, " at the entrance of
Hamath," i. e. at the commencement of the terri-
tory, of that name, by which in the early books of
the Bible the great valley of Lebanon, the Bikci'ah
of the Prophets, and the Buka'a of the modern
Arabs, seems to be roughly designated. Tlis, and
the consideration of the improbability that the
spies went farther than the upper end of the Jor-
dan Valley (Kob. Bibl. lies. iii. 371), seems to fix
the position of Eehob as not fiir from Tell eUKady
and Banias. This is confirmed by the statement
of Judg. xviii. 28, that Laish or Dan ( Tell el-Kcuhj)
was " in the valley that is by Beth-rehob." No
trace of the name of Rehob or Beth-rehob has yet
been met with in this direction. Dr. Robinson
proposes to identify it with Hunin, an ancient
fortress in the mountains N. W. of the plain of
Huleh, the upper district of the Jordan Valley.
But this, though plausible, has no certain basis.

To those who are anxious to extend the bound-
aries of the Holy Land on the north and east it
may be satisfactory to know that a place called
Ruhaibeh exists in the plain of Jerud, about 25
miles N. E. of Damascus, and 12 N. of the north-
ernmost of the three lakes (see the Ma2}s of Van
de Velde and Porter).

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

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

2. ('Paa)8: Alex. Pocois: Bohob), one of the
towns allotted to Asher (Josh, xix. 28), and which
from the list appears to have been in close prox-
imity to Zidon. It is named between Ebron, or
Abdon, and Hammon. The towns of Asher lay
in a region which has been but imperfectly exam-
ined, and no one has yet succeeded in discovering
the position of either of these three.

3. CPoay, ['Paa)8, 'Epcci, 'Poc6)8;] Alex. Pa«/3,
[Poci>)8 :] Bohob, Rochob. ) Asher contained another
Rehob (Josh. xix. 30); but the situation of this,
like the former, remains at present unknown. One
of the two, it is difficult to say which, was allotted
to the Gershonite Levites (Josh. xxi. 31; 1 Chr.
vi. 75), and one of its Canaanite inhabitants re-
tained possession (Judg. i. 31). The mention of
Aphik in this latter passage may imply that the
Rehob referred to was that of Josh. xix. 30. This,
Eusebius and Jerome (Onomasticon, "Roob") con-
fuse with the Rehob of the spies, and place four
Roman miles froni' Scythopolis. The place they
refer to still survives a.s Rehab, 3^ miles S. of
Beisan, but their identification of a town in that

« Targum Pseudojon. nT^tDyS),
reets ; and Samaritan Vers. "'SinD.

t. e. TrAttTeiat,

KEHOBOAM

position with one in the territory of Asher is ob-
viously inaccurate. G.

KEHOBO'AM (D^^n"]), enlarger of the
people — see Ex. xxxiv. 20, and compare the name
EvpvdTjfios' 'Pofiodfi' Roboam), son of Solomon,
by the Ammonite princess Naamah (1 K. xiv. 21,
31), and his successor (1 K. xi. 43). From the
earliest period of Jewish history we perceive symp-
toms that the confederation of the tribes was but
imperfectly cemented. The powerful Ephraim could
never brook a position of inferiority. Throughout
the Book of Judges (viii. 1, xii. 1) the Ephraimites
show a spirit of resentful jealousy when any enter-
prise is undertaken without their concurrence and
active participation. From them had sprung
Joshua, and afterwards (by his place of birth)
Samuel might be considered theirs, and though the
tribe of Benjamin gave to Israel its first king, yet
it was allied by hereditary ties to the house of
Joseph, and by geographical position to the terri-
tory of Ephraim, so that up to David's accession
the leadership was practically in the hands of the
latter tribe. But Judah always threatened to be a
formidable rival. During the earlier history, partly
from the physical structure and situation of its
territory (Stanley, S. <f P. p. 162), which secluded
it from Palestine just as Palestine by its geograph-
ical character was secluded from the world, it had
stood very much aloof from the nation [Judah],
and even after Saul's death, apparently without
waiting to consult their brethren, " the men of
Judah came and anointed David king over the house
of Judah " (2 Sam. ii. 4), while the other tribes
adhered to Saul's family, thereby anticipating the
final disruption which was afterwards to rend the
nation permanently into two kingdoms. But after
seven years of disaster a reconciliation was forced
upon the contending parties; David was acknowl-
edged as king of Israel, and soon after, by fixing
his court at Jerusalem and bringing the Tabernacle
there, he transferred from Ephraim the greatness
which had attached to Shechem as the ancient
capital, and to Shiloh as the seat of the national
worship. In spite of this he seems to. have enjoyed
great personal popularity among the Ephraimites,
and to have treated many of them with special
favor (1 Chr. xii. 30, xxvii. 10, 14), yet this roused
the jealousy of Judah, and probably led to the revolt
of Absalom. [Absalom.] Even after that peril-
ous crisis was past, the old rivalry broke out afresh,
and almost led to another insun-ection (2 Sam. xx.
1. &c.). Compare Ps. Ixxviii. 60, 67, &c. in illus-
tration of these remarks. Solomon's reign, from
its severe taxes and other oppressions, aggravated
the discontent, and latterly, from its irreligious
character, alienated the prophets and provoked the
displeasure of God. When Solomon's strong hand
was withdrawn the crisis came. Rehoboam se-
lected Shechem as the place of his coronation,
probably as an act of concession to the Ephraimites,
and perhaps in deference to the suggestions of those
old and wise counsellors of his father, whose advice
he afterwards unhappily rejected. From the present
Hebrew text of 1 K. xii. the exact details of the
transactions at Shechem are involved in a little
uncertainty. The general facts indeed are clear.
The people demanded a remission of the severe

b Ilere the name is written in the fuller form of

REHOBOAM

burdens imposed by Solomon, and Rehoboam prom-
ised them an answer in three days, during which
time he consulted first his father's counsellors, and
then the young men " that were grown up with
him, and which stood before him," whose answer
shows how greatly during Solomon's later years
the character of the Jewish court had degenerated.
Rejecting the advice of the elders to conciliate the
people at the beginning of his reign, and so make
them " his servants forever," he returned as his
reply, in the true spirit of an eastern despot, the
frantic bravado of his contemporaries : " My Uttle
finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. . .
. . . I will add to your yoke; my father hath
chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you
with scorpions" (i. e. scourges furnished with
sharp points «). Thereupon arose the formidable
song of insurrection, heard once before when the
tribes quarreled after David's return from the war
with Absalom : —

What portion have we in David?

What inheritauco in Jesse's son ?
To your tents, Israel !

Now see to thy own house, David !

Rehoboam sent Adoram or Adoniram, who had
been chief receiver of the tribute during the reigns
of his father and his grandfather (1 K. iv. 6; 2
Sam. XX. 24), to reduce the rebels to reason, but
he was stx)ned to death by them ; whereupon the
king and his attendants fled in hot haste to Jerusa-
lem. So far all is plain, but there is a doubt as to
the part which Jeroboam took in these transactions.
According to 1 K. xii. 3 he w.as summoned by the
Ephraimites from Egypt (to which country he had
fled from the anger of Solomon) to be their spokes-
man at Rehoboam's coronation, and actually made
the speech in which a remission of burdens was
requested. But, in apparent contradiction to this,
we read in ver. 20 of the same chapter that after
the success of the insurrection and Rehoboam's
flight, " when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was
come again, they sent and called him unto the con
gregation and made him king." But there is rea-
son to think that ver. 3 has been interpolated. It
is not found in the LXX., which maJces no mention
of Jeroboam in this chapter till ver. 20, substi
tuting in ver. 3 for " Jeroboam and all the congre-
gation of Israel came and spoke unto Rehoboam
the words, kuI e\d\riafu 6 \ahs nphs rhu ^a<n\4a
'Pofiodfi. So too Jeroboam's name is omitted by
the LXX. in ver. 12. Moreover we find in the
LXX. a long supplement to this 12th chapter, evi-
dently ancient, and at least in parts authentic, con-
taining fuller details of Jeroboaui's biography than
the Hebrew. [Jeroboam.] In this we read that
after Solomon's death he returned to his native
place, Sarira in Ephraim, which he fortified, and
lived there quietly, watching the turn of events,
till the long-expected rebellion broke out, when the
Ephraimites heard (doubtless through his own
agency) that he had returned, and invited him to
Shechem to assume the crown. From the same
supplementary narrative of the LXX. it would
appear that more than a year must have elapsed
between Solomon's death and Rehoboam's visit to
Shechem, for, on receiving the news of the former
event, Jeroboam requested from the king of Egypt

REHOBOAM

2699

« So in Latin, scorpio, according to Isidore ( Origg.
V. 27), is « virga nodosa et aculeata, quia arcuato vul-
nere in corpus infligitur" (Faceiolati\ s. v.).

leave to return to his native country. This the
king tried to prevent by giving him his sister-in-
law in marriage: but on the birth of his child
Abijah, Jeroboam renewed his request, which was
then granted. It is probable that during this year
the discontent of the N". tribes was making itself
more and more manifest, and that this led to Reho-
boam's visit and intended inauguration.

On Rehoboam's return to Jerusalem he assem-
bled an army of 180,000 men from the two faithful
tribes of Judah and Benjamin (the latter trans-
ferred from the side of Joseph to that of Judah in
consequence of the position of David's capital
within its borders), in the hope of reconquerino-
Israel. The expedition, however, was forbidden by
the prophet Sheuiaiah, who assured them that the
separation of the kingdoms was in accordance with
God's will (1 K. xii. 24): still during Rehoboam's
life-time peaceful relations between Israel and Judah
were never restored (2 Chr. xii. 15; IK. xiv. 30).
Rehoboam now occupied himself in strengthening
the territories which remained to him, by building
a number of fortresses of which the names are
given in 2 Chr. xi. G-10, forming a girdle of
" fenced cities " round Jerusalem. The pure wor-
ship of God was maintained in Judah, and the
Invites and many pious Israelites from the North,
vexed at the calf-idolatry introduced by Jeroboam
at Dan and Bethel, in imitation of the I*3gyptian
worship of Mnevis, came and settled in the southern
kingdom and added to its power. But Rehoboam
did not check the introduction of he-athen abomina-
tions into his capital: the lascivious worship of
Ashtoreth was allowed to exist by the side of the
true religion (an inheritance of evil doubtless left
by Solomon), "images" (of Baal and his fellow
divinities) were set up, and the worst imnjoralities
were tolerated (1 K. xiv. 22-24). These evils were
punished and put down by the ten-ible calamity of
an Egyptian invasion. Shortly before this time a
change in the ruling house had occurred in Egypt.
The XXIst dynasty, of Tanites, whose last king,
Pisham or Psusennes, had been a close ally of Solo-
mon (1 K. iii. 1, vii. 8, ix. 16, x. 28, 29), was suc-
ceeded by the XXIId, of Bubastites, whose first sov-
ereign, Shishak (Sheshonk, Sesonchis, SovaaKlfi),
connected himself, as we have seen, with Jeroboam.
That he was incited by him to attack Judah is
very probable: at all events in the 5th year of
Rehobaam's reign the comiti-y was invaded by a
host of Egyptians and other African nations, num-
bering 1,200 chariots, 00,000 cavalry, and a vast
miscellaneous multitude of infantry. The line of
fortresses which protected Jerusalem to the VV. and
S. was forced, Jerusalem itself was taken, and
Rehoboam had to purchase an ignominious peace
by delivering up all the treasures with which Solo-
mon had adorned the temple and palace, including
his golden shields, 200 of the larger, and 300 of the
smaller size (1 K. x. 16, 17), which were carried
before him when he visited the Temple in state.
We are told that after the %yptians had retired,
his vain and foolish successor comforted himself by
substituting shields of brass, which were solemnly
borne before him in procession by the body-guard,
as if nothing had been changed since his father's
time (Ewald, Geschichte des V. I. iii. 348, 464).
Shishak's success is commemorated by sculptures
discovered by Champollion on the outside of the
great Temple at Karnak, where among a long list
of captured towns and provinces occurs the name
Melclii Judah (kingdom of Judah). It is said

2700 REHOBOTH

that the features of the captives in these sculptures
are unmistakably Jewish (Rawlinson, Herodotus,
ii. 370, and Bampton Lectures, p. 126; liunsen,
Eyypt, iii. 242). After this great humiliation the
moral condition of Judah seems to have improved
(2 Chr. xii. 12), and the rest of Kehoboam's life to
have been unmarked by any events of importance.
He died B. c. 958, after a reign of 17 years, having
ascended the throne b. c. i)75 at the age of 41
(1 K. xiv. 21; 2 Chr. xii. 13). In the addition to
the LXX. already mentioned (inserted after 1 K.
xii. 24) we read that he was 16 years old at his
accession, a misstatement probably founded on a
wrong hiterpretation of 2 Chr. xiii. 7, where he is
called " young " (i. e. neio to his work, inexpe-
rienced) and «« tender-hearted " (!3D|P"'T]'^, want-
ing in resolution and spiHt). He had 13 wives,
60 concubines, 28 sons, and 60 daughters. The
wisest thing recorded of him in Scripture is that
he refused to waste away his sons' energies in the
wTctched existence of an Eastern zenana, in which
we may infer, from his helplessness at the age of
41, that he had himself been educated, but dis-
persed them in command of the new fortresses
which he had built about the country. Of his
wives, Mahalath, Abihail, and Maachah were all
of the royal house of Jesse : Maachah he loved best
of all, and to her son Abijah he bequeathed his
kingdom. The text of the LXX. followed in this
article is Tischendorf s edition of the Vatican MS.
[not of the Vat. MS., but reprint of the Roman
edition of 1587], Leipsic, 1850. G. E. L. C.

REHO'BOTH (niDh") [streets, wide

places']; Samar. ninTTl : evpvxopia'- Veneto-
Gk. at TWarcTai ' Latitudo). The third of the series
of wells dug by Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 22). He celebrates
his triumph and bestows its name on the well in a
fragment of poetry of the same nature as those in
which Jacob's wives give names to his successive
children : " He called the name of it Eehoboth
(•room,') and said, —

i Because now Jehovah hath-made-room for us
And we shall increase in the land.' "
Isaac had left the valley of Gerar and its turbulent
inhabitants before he dug the well which he thus
commemorated (ver. 22). From it he, in time,
"went up" to Beer-sheba (ver. 23), an expression
which is always used of motion towards the Land
of promise. The position of Gerar has not been
definitely ascertained, but it seems to have lain a
few miles to the S. of Gaza and nearly due E. of
Beer-sheba. In this direction, therefore, if any-
where, the wells Sitnah, Esek, and Rehoboth,
should be searched for. A Wady Ruhaibeh, con-
taining the ruins of a town of the same name,
with a large well,« is crossed by the road from
Khan en-Nukhl to Hebron, by which Palestine is
entered on the south. It lies about 20 miles S. W.
of Bir es-Seba, and more than that distance S.
of the most probable situation of Gerar. It there-
fore seems unsafe, without further proof, to identify
it with Rehoboth, as Rowlands (in Williams' Boly
City, i. 465), Stewart ( Tent and Khan, p. 202), and

a Dr. Robinson could not find the well. Dr. Stewart
found it " regularly built, 12 feet in circumference,"
but " completely filled up." Mr. Rowlands describes
it a-s "an ancient well of living and good water."
Who shall decide on testimony so curiously contra-
dictory ?

REHOBOTH, THE CITY

Van de Velde'' {Memoir, p. 343) have done. At
the same tmie, as is admitted by Dr. Robinson,
the existence of so large a place here, without any
apparent mention, is mysterious. All that can be
said in favor of the identity of Ruhaibeh with Reho-
both is said by Dr. Bonar {Desert of Sinai, p. 316),
and not without considerable force.

The ancient Jewish tradition confined the events
of this part of Isaac's life to a much narrower;
circle. The wells of the patriarchs were shown
near Ashkelon in the time of Origen, Antoninua]
Martyr, and Eusebius (Reland, Pal. p. 589); the,
Samaritan Version identifies Gerar with Ashkelon ;
Josephus {Ant. i. 12, § 1) calls it " Gerar of Pales-
tine,'^ i. e. of Philistia. G.

REHO'BOTH, THE CITY CT^37 nhh"?,
i. e. Rechoboth 'Ir [streets of the city] ; Samar.
niDrn; Sam. vers.^ pt^D : 'Powfiiad ttSXis]
Alex. PowjSws; platece civitatis). One of the four ^hi
cities built by Asshur, or by Nimrod in Asshur, ^fl
according as this difficult passage is translated. ^Bl
The four were Nineveh; Rehoboth-Ir; Calah;
and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah (Gen. x.
11). Nothing certain is known of its position.
The name of Rahabeh is still attached to two
places in the region of the ancient Mesopotamia.
They lie, the one on the western, and the other on the
eastern bank of the Euphrates, a few miles below the
confluence of the Khabur. Both are said to con-
tain extensive ancient remains. That on the east-
ern bank bears the affix of malik or royal, and this
Bunsen {Bibelwerk) and Kalisch {Genesis, p. 261)
propose as the representative of Rehoboth. Its
distance from Kalah-Sherghat and Nimrud (nearly
200 miles) is perhaps an obstacle to this identifica-
tion. Sir H. Rawlinsoji {Athenasum, April 15,
1854) suggests Selemiyah in the immediate neigh-
borhood of Kalah, " where there are still extensive
ruins of the Assyrian period," but no subsequent
discoveries appear to have confirmed this sugges-
tion. The Samaritan Version (see above) reads
Sutcan for Rehoboth ; and it is remarkable that
the name Sutcan should be found in connection
with Calah in an inscription on the breast of a
statue of the god Nebo which Sir H. Rawlinson
disinterred at Nimrud {Athenceum, as above).
The Sutcan of the Samaritan Version is com-
monly supposed to denote the Sittacene of the
Greek geographers (Winer, Realwb. "Rechoboth
Ir"). But Sittacene was a district, and not a
city as Rehoboth-Ir necessarily was, and, further,
being in southern Assyria, would seem to be too
distant from the other cities of Nimrod.

St. Jerome, both in the Vulgate and in his
QiuRstiones ad Genesim (probably from Jewish
sources), considers Rehoboth-Ir as referring to
Nineveh, and as meaning the "streets of the
city." The reading of the Targums of Jonathan,
Jerusalem, and Rabbi Joseph, on Gen. and 1 Chron.,
viz., Platiah, Plaiiutha, are probably only tran-
scriptions of the Greek word TrAoTeTat, which, as
found in the well-known ancient city Plataea, is
the exact equivalent of Rehoboth. Kaplan, the
Jewish geographer {Erets Kedumim), identifies

h lu his Travels Van de Velde inclinea to place it,
or at any rate one of Isaac's wells, at Blr Isek, about
six miles S. W. of Beit Jibrin {Syr. and Pal. ii. 146).

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

BEHOBOTH BY THE RIVER

Rahnheh-malik with Rehoboth-by-the-river, in
which he is possibly correct, but considers it as
distinct from Rehoboth-Ir, which he believes to
have disappeared. G.

REHO'BOTH BY THE RIVER (ninhl

*in3rT: 'PowjSwd — in Chr. 'Voifi^Q — t] irapa
voTa/j-Sy ; Alex. Vocaficod hi each : de jiuvio
Rokoboih ; Rohoboth qttce juxta amnem sitn
est). The city of a certain Saul or Shaul,
one of the early kings of the Edoniites (Gen.
xxxvi. 37; 1 Chr. i. 48). The affix "the
river," fixes the situation of Rehoboth as on the
Euphrates, emphatically '< the river " to the inhabi-
tants of Western Asia. [River.] The name
still remains attached to two spots on the Euphra-
tes; the one simply i2«/mZ»eA, on the right bank,
eight miles below the junction of the Khabw\
and about three miles west of the river (Chesney,
Euphr,, i. 119, ii. 610, and map iv.), the other
four or five miles further down on the left bank.
The latter is said to be called Rahabeh-malik, i. c.
" royal " (Kalisch, Kaplan ),« and is on this ground
identified by the Jewish commentators with the
city of Saul; but whether this is accurate, and
whether that city, or either of the two sites just
named, is also identical with Rehoboth-Ir, the city
of Nimrod, is not yet known.

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

* RE'HU, 1 Chron. i. 25 (A. V. ed. 1611).
[Reu.]

RE'HUM (D^nn [compassionate] : Peou/i ;
[Vat. omits;] Alex. lepeoy/t: Rehum). 1. One
of the>' children of the province" who went up
from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 2). In
Neh. vii. 7 he is called Nehum, and in 1 Esdr. v.
8 RoiMUS.

2. ([Vat. PoouA, Paov/nO Reum.) "Rehum
the chancellor," with Shimshai the scribe, and
others, wrote to Artaxerxes to prevail upon him
to stop tlie rebuilding of the walls and temple
of Jerusalem (Ezr. iv. 8, 9, 17, 22). He was per-
haps a kind of lieutenant-governor of the province
under the king of Persia, holding apparently the
same office as Tatnai, who is described in Ezr. v.
6 as taking part in a similar transaction, and
is there called "the governor on this side the

river." The Chaldee title, C^^'b^^, be'el-te'em,
lit. "lord of decree," is left untranslated in the
LXX. BaXraix, and the Vulgate Beelteem ; and
the rendering "chancellor" in the A. V. api)ears
to have been derived from Kimchi and others, who
explain it, in consequence of its connection with
"scribe," by the Hebrew word which is usually
rendered " recorder." This appears to have been
the view taken by the author of 1 Esdr. ii. 25, 6
ypa(pa)v to, irpo(TiriTrToi/Ta, and by Josephus (Ant.
5^1- 2, § 1), (i irdvra ra TrpaTT6iJ.eva ypacpwv- The
former of these seems to be a gloss, for the Chaldee
title is also represented by Be6AT€0/uos.

3. ('Paouju; [Vat. Boo-ou0; FA. -RaaaovQ-]

REKEM 2701

Rehum.) A Levite of the family of Bani, who as-
sisted in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (Neh.
iii. 17).

4. ('Peoi/yti; [Vat. Alex. FA. (joined with
part of the next word) Poou/x.]) One of the
chief of the people, who signed the covenant with
Nehemiah (Neh. x. 25).

5. (Om. in Vat. MS.; [also om. by Rom. Alex.
FA.i; FA.3 Peov/x:] Rheum.) A priestly family
or the head of a priestly house, who went up with
Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 3). W. A. W.

RE'I O^T [friendly, social]: [Rom. 'Prjo-i;
Vat. Alex.] Pr;<7€t : ^ Rei). A person mentioned
(in 1 K. i. 8 only) as having, in company with
Zadok, Benaiah, Nathan, Shimei, and the men of
David's guard, remained firm to David's cause
when Adonijah rebelled. He is not mentioned
again, nor do we obtain any clew to his identity.
Various conjectures have been made. Jerome
( Qutest. Htbr. ad loc. ) states that he is the same
with "Hiram the Zairite," i. e. Ira the Jairite, a
priest or prince about the person of David. Ewald
((Jesch. iii. 266 note), dwelling on the occurrence
of Shimei in the same list with Rei, suggests that
the two are David's only surviving brothers, Rei
being identical with Raddai. This is ingenious,
but there is nothing to support it, while there is
the great objection to it that the names are in the
original extremely dissimilar, Rei containing the
Ain, a letter which is rarely exchanged for any other,
but apparently never for Daleth (Gesen. Thes. pp.
976, 977). G.

REINS, i. e. kidneys, from the Latin renes.
1. The word is used to translate the Hebrew

nT v!S, except in the Pentateuch and in Is. xxxiv.
6, where "kidneys" is employed. In the ancient
system of physiology the kidneys were believed to
be the seat of desire and longing, which accounts
for their often being coupled with the heart (Ps.
vii. 9, xxvi. 2; Jer. xi. 20, xvii. 10, etc.).

2. It is once used (Is. xi. 5) as the equivalenrof
C^^vR, elsewhere translated "loins." G.

RE'KEM (Cpn [variegated garden]: '-poKov
[Vat. Po/cofi], 'Po/Sok; Alex. Po/co/t: Recem).
1. One of the five kings or chieftains of Midian
slain by the Israelites (Num. xxxi. 8; Josh. xiii.
21) at the time that Balaam fell.

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

RE'KEM (Di^."?] [as above] : perhaps Kacpiiv
Koi Na/cai/ ; Alex. Pe/ce/x. : Recem). One of the towns
of the allotment of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 27). It
occurs between Mozah (ham-Motsa) and Irpeel.
No one, not even Schwarz, has attempted to iden-

a The existence of the second rests but on slender
foundation. It is shown in the map in Layard's Nineveh
and Babylon, and is mentioned by the two Jewish au-

thorities named above ; but it does not appear in the
work of Col. Chesney.

b Reading ^ for V.

2702

REMALIAH

tify it with any existing site. But may there not
be a trace of the name in Ain Kariin, the well-
known spring west of .Jerusalem ? It is within a
very short distance of Motsah, provided Kitlonith
be Motsah, as the writer has already suggested.

REMALI'AH (^n^bo"! \whom Jehovah
o(}ar7is, Ges.] 'Po/t6A./a9 in Kings and Isaiah,
'Po/i€A/o in Chr.; [Vat. Po/xeAm (gen.) in Is.
vii. 1 :] Eonielia). The father of Pekah, captain
of Pekahiah king of Israel, who slew his mas-
ter and usurped his throne (2 K. xv. 25-37, xvi.
1, 5; 2 Chr. xxviii. 6; Is. vii. 1-9, viii. 6).

RE'METH (npn [height ?]'. 'Pffifids; Alex.
Vufi/xad'- Rnmeth). One of the towns of Issachar
(Josh. xix. 21), occurring in the list next to En-
gannim, the modern Jtnxn. It is probably (though
not certainly) a distinct place from the Ramoth
of 1 Chr. vi. 73. A place bearing the name of
Rameh is found on the west of the track from
Samaria to Jenin, about 6 miles N. of the former
and 9 S. W. of the latter (Porter, Handb. p. 348 «;
Van de Velde, Map). Its situation, on an isolated
rocky tell in the middle of a green plain buried in
the hills, is quite in accordance with its name,
which is probably a mere variation of Ramah,
" height." But it appears to be too far south to
be within the territory of Issachar, which, as far as
the scanty indications of the record can be made
out, can hardly have extended below the southern
border of the plain of P]sdraelon.

For Schwarz's conjecture that Rameh is Ra-
MATHAIM-ZOPHIM, 866 that article (iii. 2672).

REM'MON (P^"l> *• ^- Rimmon [pome-
granatel: 'Epefincl^v:^ Alex. Pcfi/xud' Remmon).
A town in the allotment of Simeon, one of a group
of four (.Josh. xix. 7 ). It is the same place which
is elsewhere accurately given in the A. V. as Rim-
mon; the inaccuracy both in this case and that of
Remmon-methoar having no doubt arisen from
our translators inadvertently following the Vulgate,
which again followed the I^XX. G.

IlEM'MON-METH'OAR(nsh??)n V*^a7,
i. e. Rimmon ham-methoar [pomegranate'] : 'Pe/x-
fiuvad MaOapao^d; Alex. Pe/xfiuvafx fjLadapi/x:
Remmon., Amthar). A place which formed one of
the landmarks of the eastern boundary of the ter-
ritory of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 13 only). It occurs
between Eth-Katsin and Neah. Methoar does not
really form a part of the name ; but is the Pual of

"nSn, to stretch, and should be translated accord-
ingly (as in the margin of the A. V.) — " R. which
reaches to Neah." This is the judgment of Ges-
enius, Thes. p. 1292 o, Rodiger, ib. 1491 a; Fiirst,
Handwb. ii. 512 a, and Bunsen, as well as of the
ancient Jewish commentator Rashi, who quotes as
his authority the Targum of Jonathan, the text of
which has however been subsequently altered, since
in its present state it agrees with the A. V. in not
translating the word. The latter course is taken
by the LXX. and Vulgate as above, and by the
Peshito, Junius and Tremellius, and Luther. The
A. V. has here further erroneously followed the

a The LXX. here combine the Ain and Rimmon of
the A. V. into one name, and make up the four cities
of this group by inserting a ©aA^a, of wliich there is

REMPHAN

Vulgate in giving the first part of the name
Remmon instead of Rimmon.

This Rimmon does not appear to have been
known to Eusebius and Jerome, but it is mentioned
by the early traveller Parchi, who says that it is
called Rumaneh, and stands an hour south of Sep-
phoris (Zunz's Benjamin, ii. 433). If for south
we read north, this is m close agreement with the
statements of Dr. Robinson {Bibl. Res. iii. 110), and
Mr. Van de Velde {Map; Memoir, p. 344), who
place Rummaneh on the S. border of the Plain of
Buttauf, 3 miles N. N. E. of Seffurieh. It is
dijfficult, however, to see how this can have been on
the eastern boundary of Zebulun.

Rimmon is not improbably identical with the
Levitical city, which in Josh. xxi. 35 appears in the
form of Dinmah, and again, in the parallel lists of
Chronicles (1 Chr. vi. 77) as Rimmono (A. V.
Rimmon). G.

REM'PHAN CP6/i0<£»/,[Lachm. Tisch. Treg.]
'Pe^oi/: Re7npham, Acts vii. 43): and CHIUN

(^^"3 : "Pai(pdv, 'PofKpa, Comjil. Am. v. 26) have
been supposed to be names of an idol worshipijed
by the Israelites in the wilderness, but seem to be
the names of two idols. The second occurs in
Amos, in the Heb. ; the first, in a quotation of that
passage in St. Stephen's address, in the Acts : the
LXX. of Amos has, however, the same name as in
the Acts, though not written in exactly the same
manner. Much diflnculty has been occasioned by
this corresponding occurrence of two names so
wholly different in sound. The most reasonable
opinion seemed to be that Chiun was a Hebrew or
Semitic name, and Remphan an Egyptian equiv-
alent substituted by the LXX. The former, ren-
dered Saturn in the Syr., was compared with the

Arab, and Pers. ^^f •.A.^S, " the planet Saturn,"

and, according to Kircher, the latter was found in
Coptic with the same signification ; but perhaps he
had no authority for this excepting the supposed
meaning of the Hebrew Chiun. Egyptology has,
however, shown that this is not the true explana-
tion. Among the foreign divinities worshipped in
Egypt, two, the god RENPU, perhaps pronounced
REMPU, and the goddess KEN, occur together.
Before endeavoring to explain the passages in which
Chiun and Remphan are mentioned, it will be
desirable to speak, on the evi^nce of the monu-
ments, of the foreign gods worshipped in Egypt,
particularly RENPU and KEN, and of the idolatry
of the IsraeUtes while in that country.

Besides those divinities represented on the mon-
uments of Egypt which have Egyptian forms or
names, or both, others have foreign forms or names,
or both. Of the latter, some appear to have been
introduced at a very remote age. This is certainly
the case with the principal divinity of Memphis,
Ptah, the Egyptian Hephaestus. The name Ptah
is from a Semitic root, for it signifies "open," and

in Heb. we find the root HnQ, and its cognates,
" he or it opened," whereas there is no woi'd related
to it in Coptic. The figure of this divinity is that
of a deformed pigmy, or perhaps unborn child, and
is unlike the usual representations of divinities on

no trace in the Hebrew, but which is possibly the
Tochen of 1 Ciir. iv. 32 — in the LXX. of tiiat passage,
0OK/ca.

REMPHAN

the monuments. In this case there can be no
doubt that the introduction took place at an ex-
tremely early date, as the name of Ftah occurs in
very old tombs in the necropolis of Memphis, and
is found throughout the religious records. It is
also to be noticed that this name is not traceable
in the mythology of neighboring nations, unless
indeed it corresponds to that of the HaTaiKoi or
naroi'/co/, whose images, according to Herodotus,
were the figure-heads of Phoenician ships (iii. 37).
The foreign divinities that seem to be of later in
troduction are not found throughout the religious
records, but only in single tablets, or are otherwise
very rarely mentioned, and two out of their four
names are immediately recognized to be nou-Egyp
tian. They are RENPU, and the goddesses KEN
ANTA, and ASTARTA. The first and second
of these have foreign forms; the third and fourth
have Egyptian forms : there would therefore seem
to be an especially foreign character about the
former two.

KENPU, pronounced REMPU(?),« is repre
sented as an Asiatic, with the full beard and ap
parently the general type of face given on the mon-
uments to most nations east of Egypt, and to the
REBU or Libyans. This type is evidently that
of the Shemites. His hair is bound with a fillet,
which is ornamented in front with the head of an
antelope.

KEN" is represented perfectly naked, holding in
both hands corn, and standing upon a lion. In the
last particular tiae figure of a goddess at Maltheiy-
yeh in Assyria may be compared (Layard, Nineveh,
ii. 212). From this occurrence of a similar repre-
sentation, from her being naked and carrying corn,
and from her being worshipped with KHEM, we
may suppose that KEN corresponded to the Syrian
goddess, at least when the latter had the character
of Venus. She is also called KETESH, which is
the name in hieroglyphics of the great Hittite town
on the Orontes. This in the present case is prob-
ably a title, nt^lp : it can scarcely be the name
of a town where she was worshipped, applied to her
as personifying it.

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

ASTARTA is of course the Ashtoreth of
Canaan.

On a tablet in the British Museum the principal
subject is a group representing KEN, having
KHEM on one side and RENPU on the other:
beneath is an arloration of ANAI'A. On the half
of another tablet KEN and KHEM occur, and a
dedication to RENPU and KETESH.

We have no clew to the exact time of the intro-
duction of these divinities into Egypt, nor except in
one case, to any particular places of their worship.
Their names occur as early as the period of the
XVlIIth and XlXth dynasties, and it is therefore
not improbable that they were introduced by the
Shepherds. ASTARTA is mentioned in a tablet
of Amenoph II., opposite Memphis, which leads to
the conjecture that she was the foreign Venus there
worshipped, in the quarter of the Phoenicians of

REMPHAN

2T03

a In illustration Of this probable pronunciation, we
may cite the occurrence in hieroglyphics of RENPA
or RANP, "youth, young, to renew ; " and, in Coptic,

of the supposed cognate p^JULIU; pOJULIlJ;

Tyre, according to Herodotus (ii. 112). It is ob-
servable that the Shepherds worshipped SUTEKH,
corresponding to SETII, and also called BAR, that
is, Baal, and that, under king APEPEF], he was
the sole god of the foreigners. SUTEKH was
probably a foreign god, and was certainly identified
with Baal. The idea that the Shepherds intro-
duced the foreign gods is therefore partly confirmed.
As to RENPU and KEN we can only offer a con-
jecture. They occur together, and KEN is a form
of the Syrian goddess, and also bears some relation
to the Egyptian god of productiveness, KHEM.
Their similarity to Baal and Ashtoreth seems
strong, and perhaps it is not unreasonable to sup-
pose that they were the divinities of some tribe
from the east, not of Phoenicians or Oanaanites,
settled in Egypt during the Shepherd-period. The
naked goddess KEN would suggest such worship as
that of the Babylonian Mylitta, but the thoroughly
Shemite appearance of RENPU is rather in favor
of an Arab source. Although we have not dis-
covered a Semitic origin of either name, the absence
of the names in the mythologies of Canaan and the
neighboring countries, as far as they are known to
us, inclmes us to look to Arabia, of which the early
mythology is extremely obscure.

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

We can now endeavor to explain the passages in
which Chiun and Remphan occur. The Masoretic
text of Amos v. 26 reads thus : " But ye bare the
tent [or ' tabernacle 'J of your king and Chiun your
images, the star of your gods [or 'your god'],
which ye made for yourselves." In the LXX. we
find remarkable differences : it reads : Kal av^Xa-
iSere tV (rKr]u^u rod Mo\6x, Kal rh ^arpov tov
deov vixS>v 'Paicpdu, rovs tvttovs ai/rcav o&y iiroii]-
aare eavroTs. The Vulg. agrees with the Masoretic
text in the order of the clauses, though omitting
Chiun or Remphan. " Et portastis tabernaculum
Moloch vestro, et imaginem idolorum vestrorum,
sidus dei vestri, quae fecistis vobis." The passage
is cited in the Acts almost in the words of the
LXX. : " Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch,
and the star of your god Remphan, figures which
ye made to worship them " {Hal aveXafiere t))v

S. p jtine^ " a year ; '• so MENNUFR, Memphis,

jULCJuiSe, iJLejUL(!f J; aiso , iieitSe,

(|>t9, and UN-NUFK, Om<|)i?.

2704

REMPHAN

CKtiVTiv rov MoA^Xj '""^ ''"^ &<TTpov Tov deov
vfJLUv "?€fx(pdv, Tovs TVTTOvs ovs iiroffjaare irpoa-
Kvvf'ii' avToTs)- A slii^lit chaiijjje in the Hebrew
would enal)le us to read Moloch (Malcam or Milcom)
instead of "your king." Beyond this it is ex-
tremely difficult to explain the differences. The
substitution of Reniphan for Chiun cannot be ac-
counted for by verbal criticism. The Hebrew does
not seem as distinct in meaning as the LXX., and
if we may conjecturally emend it from the latter,
the last clause would be, " your images which ye
made for yourselves: " and if we further transpose
Chiun to the place of " your god Kemphan," in

the LXX., DD^D m^D HM would correspond

to P^3 DD^nbW nSID n«, but how can we
account for such a transposition as would thus be
supposed, which, be it remembered, is less likely in
the Hebrew than in a translation of a difficult pas-
sage V If we compare the Masoretic text and the
supposed original, we perceive that in the former

DD'^D v!^ P'^D corresponds in position to !321D
D^'^n^M, and it does not seem an unwarrantable
conjecture that ^VD having been by mistake writ-
ten in the place of ^Dl^ by some copyist,

03*^X37^ was also transposed. It appears to be
more reasonable to read "images which ye made,"
than " gods which ye made," as the former word
occurs. Supposing these emendations to be prob-
able, we may now examine the meaning of the

The tent or tabernacle of Moloch is supposed by
Gesenius to have been an actual tent, and he com-
pares the (T/cTjj/)/ Upd of the Carthaginians (Diod.

Sic. XX. 65; Lex. s. v. H^SD). But there is
some difficulty in the idea that the Israelites car-
ried about so large an object for the purpose of
idolatry, and it seems more likely that it was a
small model of a larger tent or shrine. The read-
ing Moloch appears preferable to "your king;"
but the mention of the idol of the Ammonites as
worshipped in the desert stands quite alone. It is
perhaps worthy of note that there is reason for
supposing that Moloch was a name of the planet
Saturn, and that this planet was evidently sup-
posed by the ancient translators to be intended by
Chiun and Remphan. The correspondence of Rem-
phan or Raiphan to Chiun is extremely remarkable,
and can, we think, only be accounted for by the
supposition that the LXX. translator or translators
of the prophet had Egyptian knowledge, and being
thus acquainted with the ancient joint worship of
Ken and Renpu, substituted the latter for the
former, as they may have been unwilling to repeat
the name of a foreign Venus. The star of Rem-
phan, if indeed the passage is to be read so as to
connect these words, would be especially appro-
priate if Remphan were a planetary god ; but the
evidence for this, especially as partly founded upon
an Arab, or Pers. word like Chiun, is not suffi-
ciently strong to enable us to lay any stress upon
the agreement. lu hieroglyphics the sign for a
star is one of the two composing the word SEB,
" to adore," and is undoubtedly there used in a
symbolical as well as a phonetic sense, indicating
that the ancient Egyptian religion was partly de-
rived from a system of star-worship ; and there are
representations on the monuments of mythical

REPETITIONS IN PRAYER

creatures or men adoring stars {Ancient Egyptians,
pi. 30 A.). We have, however, no positive indica-
tion of any figure of a star being used as an
idolatrous object of worship. From the manner
in which it is mentioned we may conjecture that
the star of Remphan was of the same character
as the tabernacle of Moloch, an object connected
with false worship rather than an image of a false
god. According to the LXX. reading of the last
clause it might be thought that these objects were
actually images of Moloch and Remphan; but it
must be remembered that we cannot suppose an
image to have had the form of a tent, and that the
version of the passage in the Acts, as well as the
Masoretic text, if in the latter case we may change
the order of the words, give a clear sense. As to
the meaning of the last clause, it need only be
remarked that it does not oblige us to infer that
the Israelites made the images of the false gods,
though they may have done so, as in the case of the
golden calf: it may mean no more than that they
adopted these gods.

It is to be observed that the whole passage does
not indicate that distinct Egyptian idolatry was
practiced by the Israelites. It is very remarkable
that the only false gods mentioned as worshipped
by them in the desert should be probably Moloch,
and Chiun, and Remphan, of which the latter two
were foreign divinities worshipped in Egypt. From
this we may reasonably infer, that while the Israel-
ites sojourned in Egypt there was also a great
stranger-population in the Lower Country, and
therefore that it is probable that then the shep-
herds still occupied the land. R. S. P.

* Jablonski {Pantheon jEgyptiorum, Prolego-
mena, L. ) makes Remphah the equivalent of regina
Cceli, that is Luna, whose worship was maintained
in Egypt at an early day. His attempt, however,
to prove that this was an Egyptian divinity, in his
learned treatise Remphah illustratus, is not borne
out by the evidence of tiie monuments, the Asiatic
type of countenance being strongly marked in the
delineations of this god. He is represented brand-
ishing a club. A good specimen is to be seen in
the Museum of the Louvre at Paris (Salle des
Monuments Religieux, Armoire K), where is col-
lected in one view a complete Egyptian Pantheon.*

Movers {Die Religion der Phonizier) finds no
trace of Remphan among the gods of Phoenicia.
He makes Moloch the Fire-god of the Ammonites,
whose worship was extended through Assyria and
Chaldaea — the personification of fire as the holy
and purifying element.

Count Roug^ considers Atesh or Ketesh and
Anta or Anata to be different forms or char-
acters of the same divinity, an Asiatic Venus, for
though she wears the same head-dress and diadem
as the Egyptian goddess Hathou, the Egyptians
never represented their own goddesses by an en-
tirely nude figure. Both forms of this divinity
may be seen in the Louvre, as above. As Anta
she appears as the goddess of war, wielding a
battle-axe, and holding a shield and lance. Such
was also the character of Anaitis, the war-god-
dess of the Persians and old Assyrians. ' Accord-
ing to Movers, Astarte was a divinity of a uni-
versal character, whose worship, tinder various
names, was world-wide. J. P. T.

* REPETITIONS IN PRAYER. It is

a characteristic of all superstitious devotion to
repeat endlessly certain words, especially the names

REPHAEL

of the deities invoiced, a practice which our Lord
desij^nates as ^arroXoyia and iroXvXoyia, and
severely condemns (Matt. vi. 7).

When the priests of Baal besought their God
for fire to kindle then: sacrifice, they cried inces-
santly for several hours, in endless repetition,
Baal hear tis, Baal hear us, Baal hear tis,^
etc. (1 K. xviii. 26). When the Ephesian mob'
was excited to madness for the honor of their god-
dess, for two hours and more they did nothing but
screech with utmost tension of voice. Great the
Diana of the Ephesians, Great the Diana of the
Ephesiam, Great the Diana of the Ejihesians,
etc., with the same endless rejietition (Acts xix. 28,
39). In the same way, in the devotions of Pagan
Rome, the people would cry out more than five
hundred times without ceasing, Audi, Ccesar,
Aitdi, Coisar, Audi, Coisar, etc. Among the
Hindoos the sacred syllable Om, Dm, Om, is re-
peated as a prayer thousands of times uninterrupt-
edly. So the Roman Catholics repeat their Pater
Nosters and their Ave Marias. These single
words, with nothing else, are pronounced over and
over and over again ; and the object of the rosary
is to keep count of the number of repetitions.
For each utterance a bead is dropped, and when
all the beads are exhausted, there have been so
many prayers.

This is the practice which our Saviour con-
demns. He condemns all needless words, whether
repetitions or not. It is folly to employ a suc-
cession of synonymous terms, adding to the length
of a prayer without increasing its iisrvor. Such a
style of prayer rather shows a want of fervor; it
is often the result of thoughtless aliectation, some-
times of downright hypocrisy.

Repetitions which really arise from earnestness
and agony of spirit are by no means forbidden.
We have examples of such kind of repetition in
our Saviour's devotions in Gethsemane, and in the
wonderful prayer of Daniel (ch. ix., especially ver.
19). C. E. S.

REPH'AEL (^MD"! [whom God heals]:
'Fa(pa^\' Eaphael). Son of Shemaiah, the first-
born of Obed-edom, and one of the gate-keepers
of the Tabernacle, " able men for strength for the
service" (1 Chr. xxvi. 7).

RETHAH (nSn [inches]: 'Pacp-f): Rapha).
A son of Ephraim, and ancestor of Joshua the son
of Nun (1 Chr. vii. 25).

REPHA'IAH [3 syl.] (HJ?! [healed of
Jehovah']: 'PacpdX'i Ahx. Pacpaia: Rapha'ia). 1.
The sons of Rephaiah appear among the descend-
ants of Zerubbabel in 1 Chr. iii. 21. In the
Peshito-Syriac he is made the son of Jesaiali.

2. {'Pacpata.) One of the chieftains of the tribe
of Simeon in the reign of Hezekiah, who headed
the expedition of five hundred men against the
Amalekites of Mount Seir, and drove them out (1
Chr. iv. 42).

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

RBPHAIM, THE VALLEY OF 2705

4. [Sin. Pa(paiav.] Son of Binea, and de-
scendant of Saul and Jonathan (1 Chr. ix. 43).
In 1 Chr. viii. 37 he is called Rapha.

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

REPH'AIM. [Giants, vol. ii. p. 912.]

REPH'AIM, THE VALLEY OF (PP^

□"^SS"] : 7) KoiXas Toi>v Tirdvcov [Vat. Te:-], and
[1 Chr.] ra)V TiycivTuv; K. 'Patpdh [Vat. -fifi,
Alex, -eij/] ; in Isaiah (pdpay^ areped), 2 Sam. v.
18, 22, xxiii. 13 ; 1 Chr. xi. 15, xiv. 9 ; Is. xvii. 5.
Also in Josh. xv. 8, and xviii. 16, where it is trans-
lated in the A. V. " the valley of the giants " (77}
'Pa<j)aii/ and 'EfieK 'Pa(paiv [Vat. -et j/, Alex, -eifi] ).
A spot which was the scene of some of David's
most remarkable adventures. He twice encoun-
tered the Philistines there, and inflicted a destruc-
tion on them and on their idols so signal that it
gave the place a new name, and impressed itself on
the popular mind of Israel with such distinctness
that the Prophet Isaiah could employ it, centuries
alter, as a symbol of a tremendous impending judg-
ment of God — nothing less than the desolation and
destruction of the whole earth (Is. xxviii. 21, 22).
[Peuazim, mount.]

It was probably during the former of these two
contests that the incident of the water of Beth-
lehem (2 Sam. xxiii. 13, &c.) occurred. The
"hold"« (ver. 14) in which David found himself,
seems (though it is not clear) to have been the
cave of Adullam, the scene of the commencement
of his freebooting life; but, wherever situated, we
need not doubt that it was the same fastness as
that mentioned in 2 Sam. v. 17, since, in both

cases, the same word (n;j!^!^Z$n, with the def.
article), and that not a usual one, is employed.
The story shows very clearly the predatory nature
of these incursions of the Philistines. It was in
"harvest time" (ver. 13). They had come to
carry oflT the ripe crops, for which the valley was
proverbial (Is. xvii. 5), just as at Pas-dammim
(1 Chr. xi. 13) we find them in the parcel of
ground full of barley, at Lehi in the field of len-
tiles (2 Sam. xxiii. 11), or at Keilah in the thresh-
ing-floors (1 Sam. xxiii. 1). Their animals ^ were
scattered among the ripe com receiving their load
of plunder. The "garrison," or the oflficerc in
charge of the expedition, was on the watch in the
village of Bethlehem.

This narrative seems to imply that the valley of
Rephaim was near Bethlehem; but unfortunately
neither this nor the notice in Josh. xv. 8 and xviii.
16, in connection with the boundary line between
Judah and Benjamin, gives any clew to its situa-
tion, still less does its connection with the groves
of mulberry trees or Baca (2 Sam. v. 23), itself
unknown. Josephus {Ant. vii. 12, § 4) mentions
it as " the valley which extends (from Jerusalem)
to the city of Bethlehem."

Since the latter part of the 16th cent.<< the
name has been attached to the upland plain Mhich
stretches south of Jerusalem, and is crossed by the

a There is no warrant for " down to the hold " in
A. V. Had it been 7^, " down " might have been
added with safety.

6 This is the rendering in the ancient and trust-

worthy Syriac version of the rare word ri'^n (2 Sam.
xxiii. 13), rendered in our version " troop."

c Netsib. The meaning is uncertain (see vol. ii.
353, note).

d According to Tobler ( Topo^apA/e, etc., ii. 404),
Cotowycus is the first who records this identification.

2706

REPHIDIM

road to liethlehem — the eLBuk'ah of the modern
Arabs (Tobler, Jemsnlem, etc., ii. 401). But this,
though appropriate enough as regards its prox-
imity to Bethlehem, does not answer at all to the
meaning of the Hebrew word Emtk, which appears
always to designate an inclosed valley, never an
open upland plain like that in question," the level
of which is as high, or nearly as high, as that of
Mount Zion itself. [Valley.] Eusebius, ( Ono-
masticon, 'facpadu and 'E/JLCKpatpaelfi) calls it the
valley of the Philistines {Koi\as a\\o(pv\(t)v), and
places it " on the north of Jerusalem," in the tribe
of Benjamin.

A position N. W. of the city is adopted by
Fiirst {Handrcb. ii. 383 b\ apparently on the
ground of the terms of Josh. xv. 8 and xviii. 16,
which certainly do leave it doubtful whether the
valley is on the north of the boundary or the
boundary on the north of the valley; and Tobler,
in his last investigations (3«e Wandeinmg, p. 202),
conclusively adopts the Wiidy der Jasin ( W.
Mnkhnor, in Van de Velde's map), one of the side
valleys of the great Wady Beit Hanina, as the
valley of Rephaim. This position is open to the
obvious objection of too great distance from both
Bethlehem and the cave of Adullam (according to
any position assignable to the latter) to meet the
requirements of 2 Sam. xxiii. 13.

The valley appears to derive its name from the
ancient nation of the Rephaim. It may be a trace
of an early settlement of theirs, possibly after they
were driven from their original seats east of the
Jordan by Chedorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 5), and before
they again migrated northward to the more secure
wooded districts in which we find them at the date
of the partition of the country among the tribes
(Josh. xvii. 15; A. V. "giants"). In this case it
is a parallel to the " mount of the Amalekites " in
the centre of Palestine, and to the towns bearing
the name of the Zemaraim, the Avim, the Ophnites,
etc., which occur so frequently in Benjamin (vol. i.
p. 277, note b). G.

REPH'IDIM (D'^'75^ : 'VaipiZdv : {_Raph-
idiiri] ). Ex. xvii. 1, 8 ; xix. 2. The name means
♦Tests" or "stays;" the place lies in the march
of the Israelites from Egypt to Sinai. The " wil-
derness of Sin" was succeeded by Rephidim accord-
ing to these passages, but in Num. xxxiii. 12, 13,
Dophkah and Alush are mentioned as occurring
between the people's exit from that wilderness and
their entry into the latter locality. There is noth-
ing known of these two places which will enable us
to fix the site of Rephidim. [Alush ; Dophkah.]
I^psius' view is that INIount Serbdl is the true
Horeb, and that Rephidim is Wady Feiran, the
well known valley, richer in water and vegetation
than any other in the peninsula (Lepsius' To7ir
from Thebes to Sinai, 1845, pp. 21, 37). This
would account for the expectation of finding water
here, which, however, from some unexplained cause
failed. In Ex. xvii. 6, "the rock in Horeb" is
named as the source of the water miraculously sup-
plied. On the other hand, the language used Ex.

a On the other hand it is somewhat singular that
the modem name for this upland plain, Buka'ah,
should be the same with that of the great inclosed
valley of Lebanon, which differs from it as widely as
it can differ from the signification of Emek. There is
no connection between BUk^ah and Baca; they are
essentially distinct.

b On this Lepsius remarks that Robinson would

REPHIDIM

xix. 1, 2, seems precise, as regards the point tna
the journey from Rephidim to Sinai was a dis-
tinct stage. The time from the wilderness of Sin,
reached on the fifteenth day of the second month
of the Exodus (Ex. xvi. 1), to the wilderness of
Sinai, reached on the first day of the third month
(xix. 1), is from fourteen to sixteen days. This,
if we follow Num. xxxiii. 12-15, has to be dis-
tributed between the four march -stations Sin,
Dophkah, Alush, and Rephidim, and their corre-
sponding stages of journey, which would allow two
days' repose to every day's march, as there are four
marches, and 4 X 2 -f- 4 = 12, leaving two days
over from the fourteen. The first grand object
being the arrival at Sinai, the intervening distance
may probably have been despatched with all possi-
ble speed, considering the weakness of the host by
reason of women, etc. The name Horeb is by
Robinson taken to mean an extended range or
region, some part of which was near to Rephidim,
which he places at Wady esh- Sheikh ^ runnuig
from N. E. to S. W., on the W. side of Gebel
Fureia, opposite the northern face of the modern
Horeb. [Sinai.] It joins the Wady Feiran.
The exact spot of Robinson's Rephidim is a defile
in the esh-Sheikh visited and described by Burck-
hardt {Syria, etc., p. 488) as at about five hours'
distance from where it issues from the plain Er~
Raheh, narrowing between abrupt cliffs of black-
ened granite to about 40 feet in width. Here is
also the traditional " Seat of Moses " (Robinson,
i. 121). The opinion of Stanley (S. ^ P. pp. 40-
42), on the contrary, with Ritter (xiv. 740, 741),
places Rephidim in Wady Feiran, where the traces
of building and cultivation still attest the impor-
tance of this valley to all occupants of the desert.
It narrows in one spot to 100 yards, showing high
mountains and thick woods, with gardens and date-
groves. Here stood a Christian church, city and
episcopal residence, under the name of Paran, be-
fore the foundation of the convent of Mount St.
Catherine by Justinian. It is the finest valley in
the whole peninsula (Burckhardt, Ai^ab. p. 602; .
see also Robinson, i. 117, 118). Its fertility and
richness account, as Stanley thinks, for the Amal-
ekites' struggle to retain possession against those
whom they viewed as intrusive aggressors. This
view seems to meet the largest amount of possible
conditions for a site of Sinai. Lepsius, too (see
above) dwells on the fact that it was of no use for
Moses to occupy any other part of the wilderness,
if he could not deprive the Amalekites of the only
spot {Feiran) which was inhabited. Stanley (41)
thinks the word describing the ground, rendered
the "hill" in Ex. xvii. 9, 10, and said adequately
to describe that on which the church of Paran
stood, affords an argument in favor of the Feiran
identity. H. H.

* Upon the other hand, however, it may be
urged with nmch force, that since Wady Feiran
is full twelve hours' march from Jebel Musa, Rephi-
dim could not have been in that valley if the iden-
tity of Sinai with this mountain is maintained;

have certainly recognized the true position of Rephi-
dim {i. e. at Wady Feiran), had he not passed by
Wady Feiran with its brook, garden, and ruins — the
most interesting spot in the peninsula — in order to
see SarbUt el-Chadem {ibid. p. 22). And Stanley ad-
mits the objection of bringing the Israelites through
the most striking scenery in the desert, that of Feiran,
without any event of importance to mark it.

REPROBATE

for Rephidim was distant from Sinai but one day's
march (Ex. xix. 2; Num. xxxiii. 15), and the dis-
tance from Wddy Fdran to Jebd Musa could not
have been accomplished by so great a nudtitude on
foot, in a single march. Moreover, the want of water
spoken of in Ex. xxii. 1, 2, seems to preclude the
Wady Feiran as the location of Rephidim ; for the
AVady has an almost perennial supply of water,
whereas the deficiency referred to in the narrative
seems to have been natural to the sterile and rocky
region into which the people had now come, and it
was necessary to supply them from a supernatural
source.

The location of Rephidim must be determined
by that of Siiuii; and the author of the above article,
in his article on Sinai, seems to answer his own
arguments for placing Rephidim in the Wady
Feiran with Strbdl as the Sinai, and to accept
in the main Dr. Robinson's identification of Sinai
and Horeb, which requires that Rephidim be trans-
ferred to yVady es-Sheykh. The weight of topo-
graphical evidence and of learned authority now
favors this view. J. P. T.

* REPROBATE (DWp2 : i5<^Ki/ios),irac«pa-
ble of eiuluring trial, or when tested, found un-
worthy (with special reference, primarily, to the
assay of metals, see Jer. vi. 30), hence, in general,
coii-upi, worihlos$.

The word is employed by St. Paul, apparently
for the sake of the antithetic parallelism, 2 Cor.
xiii. 6, 7, in the merely negative sense of " un-
proved," " unattested," with reference to himself
as being left, supposably, without that prof^f of his
apostleship whicii might be furnished by disciplinary
chastisements, inflicted ujx)n offenders through his
instrumentality. The same word, which is ordi-
narily in the A. V. translated " reprobate," is ren-
dered 1 Cor. ix. 27, " a castaway, ^^ and Heb. vi. 8,
« rejected." D. S. T.

RE'SEN ("iP;?: Aao-^; [Alex.] Aatre/x: Jie-
sen) is mentioned only in Gen. x. 12, where it is
said to have been one of the cities built by Asshur,
after he went out of the land of Shinar, and to
have lain " between Nineveh and Calah." Many
writers have been incUned to identify it with the
Rhesina or Rhesaena of the Byzantine authors
(Amm. Marc, xxiii. 5; Procop. Bell. Pers. ii. 19;
Steph. Byz. sub voce 'Peaiva), and of Ptolemy
{Geograjyh. v. 18), which was near the true source
of the western Khabour, and which is most prob-
ably the modern Bas-el-ain. (See Winer's Jieal-
worterbuch, sub voce "Resen.") There are no
grounds, however, for this identification, except the
similarity of name (which similarity is perhaps fal-

kcious, since the LXX. evidently read "jDI for

"JDI), while it is a fatal objection to the theory
that Restena or Resina was not in Assyria at all,
but in Western Mesopotamia, 200 miles to the west
of both the cities between which it is said to have
lain. A far more probable conjecture was that of
Boehart {Geoyraph. Sacr. iv. 23), who found
Resen in the Larissa of Xenophon (Anab. iii, 4,
§ 7), which is most certainly the modern Nimmd.
Resen, or Dasen — whichever may be the true
form of the word — must assuredly have been in
this neighborhood. As, however, the Nimrud
ruins seem really to represent Calah, while those
opposite Mosul are the remains of Nineveh, we
must look for Resen in the ti-act lying between these

RESURRECTION

2707

two sites. Assyrian remains of some considerable
extent are found in this situation, near the modern
village of Selomiyeh, and it is perhaps the most
probable conjecture that these represent the Resen
of Genesis.' No doubt it maybe said that a "great
city," such as Resen is declared to have been (Gen.
X. 12), could scarcely have intervened between two
other large cities which are not twenty miles apart ;
and the ruins at Selamiych, it must be admitted,
are not very extensive. But perhaps we ought to
understand the phrase "a great city" relatively
— i, e. great, as cities went in early times, or great,
considering its proximity to two other larger towns.

If this explanation seem unsatisfactory, we might
perhaps conjecture that originally Asshur {Kileh-
Sherahat) was called Calah, and Nimrud Resen;
but that, when the seat of empire was removed
northwards from the former place to the latter, the
name Calah was transferred to the new capital. In-
stances of such transfers of name are not unfre-
quent.

The later .Jews appear to have identified Resen
with the Kileh-Sheryhat ruins. At least the Tar-
gums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem explain Resen

by Tel-Assar (lObn or IDSTTl), » the mound
of Asshur." G. R.

* RESH, which means "head," is the name
of one of the Hebrew letters (l). It designates a
division of Ps. cxix. and commences each verse of
that division. It occurs in some of the other al-
phal>etic compositions. [Poetky, Hkbkew ;

VVlUTING.] H.

RE'SHEPH (^ttn : 2apc{*; Alex. Poo-ec^:
Reseph). A son of Ephraim and brother of Itephah
(1 Chr. vu. 25).

* RESURRECTION. The Scripture doc-
trines of the resurrection and of the future life are
closely connected; or, rather, as we shall see in thfe
sequel, are practically identical.

It will be proper, therefore, to begin with the
notices and intimations of both, which are contained
in the Old Testament.

I. Resurkection in the Old Testament.

1. The passage which presents itself firet for con-
sideration is Ex. iii. 6, the address of God to Mo-
ses at the burnirtg bush, saying, " I am the God of
thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob." This text takes prece-
dence of all others, inasmuch as it is expressly ap-
pealed to by our Lord (Matt. xxii. 31, 32; Mark
xii. 26; Luke xx. 37) in proof of a resurrection,
and in confutation of the Sadducees, who denied it.
Now, our Lord argues that since God is not a (iod
of the dead but of the living, it is implied that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still living. That
they were still living is undoubtedly a truth of fact,
and expresses, therefore, the truth of the relation of
the Divine consciousness (so to speak) to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, as indicated in those words.
Moreover, this argument from those words was in
accordance with the received modes of Jewish
thought. It silenced the Sadducees. It probably
has a foundation and a force in the structure of
the Hebrew language which we cannot easily or
fully appreciate. To us it would seem inconclu-
sive as a piece of mere reasoning, especially when
we consider that the verb of existence ("am") is
not expi^essed in the Hebrew. But it is not a piece

2708

RESURRECTION

of mere reasoning. The recognition in the Divine
mind of the then present relation to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, as living, is declared on Christ's
authority ; and the evidence of it contained in the
Hebrew text was sufficient for the minds to which
that evidence was addressed. A deeper insight
into the meaning of this text, and into the charac-
ter of Jehovah as the ever-living God and loving
Father, would probably make clear to our own
minds more of the inherent force of this argument
of our Blessed Lord in proof of the resurrection of
the dead.

2. The story of the translation of Enoch, Gen.
V. 22, 24, manifestly implies the recognition of a
future, supramundane life, as familiar to Moses and
the patriarchs ; for, otherwise, how should we find
here, as the Apostle to the Hebrews argues, any
illustration of the second great article of faith in
God, namely, that " Heis a rewarder of them that
diligently seek Him " ?

3. The rapture of Elijah, as related in 2 Kings ii.,
implies as certainly a recognition of the same truth.

4. The raising of the child by Elijah, 1 K. xvii.
21-24, implies the fact, and the then existing be-
lief in the fact, of the continued existence of the
soul after death, i. e. after its separation from the
body. " Lord, my God," says the prophet, "I

pray Thee, let this child's soul (ti753, nephesh)
come into him again."

5. The same truth is implied in the account of
the raising of the child by Elisha, 2 K. iv. 20,
32-36.

6. Also, in the case of the dead man resusci-
tated by the contact of Elisha's bones, 2 K. xiii
21. — And these three last are illustrations also of
the resurrection of the body.

7. The popular belief among the Hebrews in the
existence and activity of the souls or spirits of the
departed is manifest from the strong tendency
which existed among them to resort to the practice
of necromancy. See the familiar story of the witch
of Endor, 1 Sam. xxviii. See also the solemn pro-
hibition of this practice, Deut. xviii. 9-11 ; where

we have expressly D"^in^n"7S tt7"].T, dwesh
el-hammei/nm, a seeker of a miraculous response
from the dead, — a necromancer. See also Lev.
six. 31 and xx. 6 ; where the Israelites are forbid-
den to have recourse to the m^S, oboth, " such
as have familiar spirits," according to the received
translation, but according to Gesenius, " sooth-
sayers who evoke the manes of the dead, by the
power of incantations and magical songs, in order
to give answers as to future and doubtful things."
Such was the witch of Endor herself, 1 Sam. xxviii.
7. These necromancers are, under this name, very
frequently referred to in the O. T. : see Isa. xix. 3
and xxix. 4 ; Deut. xviii. 11 ; 2 K. xxi. 6 ; 2 Chr.
xxxiii. 6, &c. In Isa. viii. 19, this word is used in
a very significant connection : " And when they
shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have fa-
miliar spirits, the H^IlW, and unto wizards that
peep and that mutter; should not a people seek
unto their God? foi' the living to the dead

(D^'n^rrbSt)? To the law and to the testi-
mony."

Now, it is of no consequence to our present pur-
pose whether these necromancers really had inter-
course with departed spirits or not, — whether the

witch of Endor really called up the spirit of Sam-
uel or not ; they may all have been mere impostors,
jugglers, mountebanks; — it is all the same to us;
the practice of consulting them and confidhig in
them proves incontestably the popular belief in the
existence of the spirits they were supposed to evoke.

8. The same belief is shown in the use of the
word Rephaim (Q'^SQ'^), sometimes translated
"giants," and sometimes "the dead," but more
properly meaning Manes, or, perhaps, " the dead
of long ago:" see Isa. xiv. 9; Ps. Ixxxviii. 10;
Prov. ii. 18, ix. 18, xxi. 16; and Isa. xxvi. 14, 19.
[Giants, vol. ii. p. 912.J

9. This belief is shown also, and yet more dis-
tinctly, in the popular conceptions attached to Shtol,

{ViStt?, or VSP), i. e. Hades, the abode of the
departed. Our word grave, used in a broad and
somewhat metaphorical sense, as equivalent to the
abode of the dead in general, may often be a proper
translation of Sheol; but it is to be carefully ob-
served that Sheol is never used for an individual
grave or sepulchre ; — a particular man's grave is
never called his sheol. Abraham's burying-place
at Mamre, or Jacob's at Shechem, was never con-
founded with Sheol. However Sheol may be asso-
ciated — and that naturally enough — with the
place in which the body is deposited and decays,
the Hebrews evidently regarded it as a place where
the dead continued in a state of conscious existence.
No matter though they regarded the place as one
of darkness and gloom ; and no matter though they
regarded its inhabitants as shades ; — still they be-
lieved that there was such a place, and that the
souls of the departed still existed there: see Isa.
xiv. 9, 10: " HeU (Sheol) from beneath is moved
for thee at thy coming ; it stirreth up the dead for
thee, even all the chief ones of the earth ; it hath
raised up from their thrones all the kings of the
nations. All they speak and say unto thee. Art
thou also become weak as we ? Art thou become
like unto us ? " This may be said to be the lan-
guage of poetic imagery and personification; but
it unquestionably expresses prevailing popular ideas.
Jacob goes down to Sheol to his son mourning,
Gen. xxxvii. 35. Abraham goes to his J'atherjs in
peace. Gen. xv. 15. And so in general, the famil-
iar phrase, " being gathered to his fathers," means
more than dying as they had died, or being placed
in the family tomb ; it means, joined to their com-
pany and society in Sheol: see Job iii. 11-19, and
xiv. 13; Ps. xvi. 10, and xlix. 14, 15. For the fur-
ther development of the idea, connected with the
later conception of " the bosom of Abraham," see
Luke xvi. 22. [Hell; Abraham's Bosom.]

10. There are many indications, in the Old Tes-
tament, of the idea of a resurrection proper, of a
reunion of soul and body, and a transition to a
higher life than either that of earth or of Sheol.

The vision of the valley of the dry bones in
Ezek. xxxvii., though it may be intended merely
to symbolize the restoration of the Jewish state,
yet shows that the notion of a resurrection of the
body, even after its decay and corruption, had
distinctly occurred to men's minds in the time of
the prophet, and was regarded neither as absurd,
nor as beyond the limits of Almighty power. It is
even employed for the purpose of illustrating an-
other grand idea, another wonderful fact.

In Isa. xxvi. 19, the prophet says: "Thy dead
men (Heb. methim) shall live, together with my

RESURRECTION

dead body shall they arise. Awake and sin^, ye
that dwell in tlie dust: for thy dew is as the dew
of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead "

(D'^SDn). Ps. xvi. 8-11: "My flesh also shall
rest in hope; for thou wilt not leave my soul
(^tt?D2) in hell (V"1Stpb); neither wilt thou
sufter thy Holy One to see corruption." Ps. xvii.
15 : "I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy
likeness." Ps. xxiii. 4: " Though I walk through
the valley of the shadow of death I will fear
no evil." Ps. Ixxiii. 24-26: "Thou shalt guide
me by thy counsel, and afterward receive me to
glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? and
there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee.
My flesh and my heart faileth, but God is the
strength of my heart, and my portion forever."
Job xiv. 13-15: "Oh that thou wouldest hidejpe
me in the grave (Sheol), that thou wouldest keep
me secret until thy wrath be past, that thou would-
est appoint me a set time and remember me ! If
a man die shall he live again '? All the days of my
appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
T/iou shalt call^ and I loill answer thee; thou shall
have a desire to the icork of thy hands.'^ Job xix.
23-27 : " Oh that my words were now written !
Oh that they were printed in a book ! that they
were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock

forever! For I know that my Iledeemer (7S2,
Goel, — who, Gesenius says, is here God himself)
liveth, and that he shall stand in the latter day
upon the earth ; and after my skin let them de-
stroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."
It is true many attempts have been made, by vary-
ing translations and special interpretations, to as-
sign to this passage some other reference than to
the resurrection of the dead. But if this last is
the natural sense of the words, — and of this every
candid reader must judge for himself, — it is just
as credible as any other, for it is only begging the
question to allege that the idea of a resurrection
had not occurred at that time. Dan. xii. 2^ 3 :
" And many that sleep in the dust of the earth
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to
shame and everlasting contempt." Here it can
hardly with any reason be doubted that a proper
resurrection of the body is meant.

11. This idea and hope of a future resurrection
was yet more distinctly developed during the period
between the close of the Canon of the Old Testa-
ment and the Christian era. See 2 Mace. vii.
9, 14, 36 ; Wisdom, ii. 1, 23, and iii. 1-9.

12. If we compare the definition of faith in the
eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
the statement of the palpable truth that he who
cometh to God " must believe that he is, and that
he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him,''''
with the illustrations given in the rest of the chap-
ter, drawn from the Old Testament, we shall see
that it must be implied in the case of all of them,
as well as of Enoch, that they looked for a future
resurrection and everlasting life. See particularly
vv. 10, 13-16, 19, 26, 35.

13. Kemarkable are the predictions in Ez. xxxiv.
23, 24, xxxvii. 24, 25 ; Jer. xxx. 7 ; and Hos. iii.
5 ; — where, in connection with a restoration of the
Jews, we are told of "my servant David who shall
be their prince," " David their king, whom I will
raise up," etc. Also, the prediction in Mai. iv. 5:
" I will send you Elijah the prophet," etc., with
which compare Luke ix. 7, 8, 19. It seems that

RESURRECTION

2709

Herod, — with most other Jews, probably, — ex-
pected this last prediction to be fulfilled by a literal
resurrection. The question is. Shall we find in
such prophecies a resurrection, metempsychosis, or
metaphor? Probably the last; see Matt. xi. 14;
Mark viii. 13 ; Luke i. 17 ; John i. 21. Thus John
the Baptist was Elias, and he was not Elias : that
is to say, he was not Elias literally, but, as the
angel said, he came " in the spirit and power of
Elias; " and in him the prophecy was properly
fulfilled, — he was the " Elias which was for to
come."

14. There are in the Classical as well as in the
Hebrew writers, indications of the recognition not
oidy of the continued existence of the souls of the
departed, but of the idea of a proper resurrection ;
— showing that the thought does not strike the
unsophisticated human mind as manifestly absurd.
See Horn. //. xxi. 54, and xxiv. 756 {avaarii-
(Tovrai)' See also uEschylus, who uses the same
word.

15. It must be admitted, however, that with all
the distinct indications that the writers and saints
of the Old Testament looked for a future life and
a final resurrection, they very often indulge in ex-
pressions of gloomy despondency, or of doubt and
uncertainty in regard to it; so that it is strictly
true, for Jews as well as for Gentiles, that life and
immortality are brought to light through the Gospel.
For some of those gloomy utterances see Isa.
xxxviii. 18, 19; Job xiv. 10-13; xvii. 14-16; x.
18-22; vii. 6-9; Ps. xxx. 9; xxxix. 12, 13; xlix.
19, 20; Ixxxviii. 4-12; cii. 11, 12, 23-28; ciii.
15-17; civ. 29-31; cxliv. 3-5; cxlvi. 4-6; Eccles.
iii. 18-22; ix. 4-6, 10. But, on the other hand,
see Eccles. xii. 7, 13, 14 : " Then shall the dust
return to the earth as it was ; and the spirit shall
return unto God that gave it." " For God shall
bring every work into judgment, with every secret
thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
So then the soul, or spirit, neither perishes with
the body, nor is absorbed into the Deity. It con-
tinues in conscious existence, a subject of reward
or punishment.

II. Resurrection in the New Testament.

1. There are fire cases of the raising of dead
persons recorded in the New Testament.

(a. ) The daughter of Jairus, Luke viii. 49-55 ;
(6.) The widow's son at Nain, Luke vii. 11-15;
(c.) Lazarus of Bethany, John xi. 1-44;
\d.) Dorcas, or Tabitha", Acts xi. 36-42;
(e.) Eutychus, Acts xx. 9-12.

2. Several other references are made, in a more
or less general way, to the power and the fact of
miraculously raising dead persons : Matt. x. 8
(text disputed); xi. 5; Luke vii. 22; John xii.
1, 9, 17 ; Heb. xi. 19, 35.

It is to be noted that all these cases recorded or
alluded to in the New Testament, like the cases of
miraculous resurrections in the Old Testament,
were resurrections to a natural, mortal hfe; yet
they imply, no less, continued existence after death ;
they prefigure, or rather, they presuppose a final
resurrection.

3. The doctrine of a final general resurrection
was the prevailing doctrine of the Jews (the Phar-
isees) at the time of Christ and his Apostles. See
Matt. xxii. ; Mark xii. ; Luke xx. 33-39 ; John xi.
23, 24; Acts xxiii. 6-8; xxiv. 14, 15, 21; and
xxvi. 4-8. If, then, Christ and his Apostles
plainly and solemnly assert the same doctrine, we

2710

RESURRECTION

are not at liberty to give their words a strained or
metaphorical interj)retation. We must suppose
them to mean >\hat they knew they would be
understood to mean. This is especially clear in
the case of St. Paul, who had himself been edu-
cated a Pharisee.

The Jews seem to have also believed in return-
ing sqririts : Acts xii. 13-15 ; Matt. xiv. 26 ; Mark
vi. 49 ; Luke xxiv. 37-39 ; but neither Christ nor
his Apostles seem anywhere to have admitted or
sanctioned this opinion.

4. The resurrection of Christ is the grand pivot
of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of
the dead. Special characters of Christ's resurrec-
tion are: (1.) His body rose, which had not seen
corruption. (2.) His body rose to immortal life —
"to die no more," Rom. vi. 9, 10. (3.) His body
rose a spiritual body — the same, and yet not the
same, which had been laid in the tomb, John xx.

19, 20; Luke xxiv. 13-32; Mark xvi. 12; 1 Cor.
XV.; Phil. iii. 21; 1 Pet. iii. 21, 22. (4.) It is
more consonant with the Scripture statements to
bold that his body rose a spiritual body, than that,
rising a natural, con'uptible, mortal body, it was
either gradually or suddenly changed before or at
his ascension. (5.) He was the first thus raised to
a spiritual, immortal life in the body, 1 Cor. xv.

20, 23 ; for it is to be observed that, while the rocks
were rent and thus the graves were opened at hi$
crucifixio7i, yet the bodies of the saints which
slept did not arise and come out of their graves
until after his resurrection. They, too, seem to
have risen, not with natural bodies like Lazarus
and others, but with spiritual bodies ; for they are
said to have "appeared unto many," but they do
not seem to have lived again a natural life among
men and to have died a second time. Neither were
their "appearances" the apparitions of returning
spirits; their bodies rose and came out of their
graves — not out of " the grave," out of " Hades,''''
or " Sheol,'^ but out of " their graves." And, like
their risen Lord, they soon disappeared from the
scenes of earth.

5. There are several uses and applications, in
the New Testament, of the words avda-raais and
eyepffis, which seem to be substantially synony-
mous, differing only in the figurative form of the
common thought, and which are alike translated
"resurrection." The same is true of the verbs
from which they are derived: (1.) They seem to
import immortal life, in general, in a future world.
Matt. xxii. 31, and the parallel passages in Mark
and Luke; 1 Cor. xv. 18, 19. (2.) They signify
distinctly the resurrection of the body, John v. 28,
29; xi. 23, 24; 1 Cor. xv. 35-54; and all the
cases where Christ's resurrection is spoken of, as
John XX. 26-29 ; Luke xxiv. 3-7 ; Matt, xxvii. 52 ;
xxviii. 13, &c., &c. ; also 1 Cor. xv. 1-23; and see
Luke xvi. 31. (3.) They refer to a spiritual and
moral resurrection. Eph. i. 20, comp. ii. 6; Phil,
iu. 11 (?); Col. iii. 1; Rom. vi. 4-14; &c.

But here is to be noted, that, according to the
ideas of the New Testament, as will be particu-
larly seen in St. Paul's argument in 1 Cor. xv.,
the second signification is always implied in and
with the first, as a condition or a consequence ; and
that the third is merely metaphorical.

6. The heathen or philosophic doctrine of im-
mortality is to be carefully distinguished from the
Christian doctrine of the resun-ection. The ab-
stract immortality of the human soul, its immor-
taUty independent of any reunion with the body,

RESURRECTION

was indeed a favorite and lofty speculation of the
ancient heathen philosophers. But they could
never demonstrate its necessary truth by reason-
ing, nor establish its practical reahty by positive
evidence. It remained, and, for all human philos-
ophy could ever do, nmst have continued, merely
a beautiful vision, a noble aspiration, or, at best, a
probable presentiment.

The popular view of the Greek mind was devel-
oped in the ideas of Hades, Elysium, and Tarta-
rus ; and to this view may correspond also the pop-
ular Hebrew conception of Sheol; from which the
veil of darkness — even for the minds of inspired
poets and prophets — was not entirely removed,
until the glorious light of the Gospel shined in
upon it. The nearest approximation of heathen
theories to the Christian doctrine of the resurrec-
tion, — a kind of instinctive groping towards it,
— lis found in the wide-spread philosophical and
popular notion of metempsychosis. The immor-
tality which the heathen imagined and to which
they aspired, even in Elysium, was, for the most
part, a sad and sony immortality, — an immor-
tality to which they would unhesitatingly have pre-
ferred this present life in the flesh, if it could have
been made permanent and raised above accident
and pain. But their notions of metempsychosis
could have afforded them at this point but meagre
consolation. Instead of Paradise it was only an
indefinite Purgatory.

But how has the Gospel brought life and im-
mortality to light ? By establishing as an indubi-
table practical fact the resurrection of the body.
Thus the natural repugnance to annihilation, the
indefinite longings and aspirations of the human
mind, its fond anticipations of a life to come, are
fully confirmed and satisfied. Immortality is no
longer a dream or a theory, but a practical, tangi-
ble fact, a fact both proved and illustrated, and
therefore capable of being both confidently believed
and distinctly realized.

In the view of the New Testament, the immor-
tality of the soul and the resurrection of the body
always involve or imply each other. If the soul
is immortal, the body will be raised ; if the body
will be raised, the soul is immortal. The first is
implied in our Lord's refutation of the Sadducees;
the second is a matter of course. The Christian
doctrine of immortality and resurrection is a con-
vertible enthymeme.

And is not this plain, common-sense view of the
Scriptures, after all, nearer the most philosophic
truth, than the counter analytical abstractions?
All we need care about, it is sometimes thought
and said, is the immortality of the soul. Let that
be established, and we have before us all the future
life that we can desire. Why should we wish for
the resurrection of this material incumbrance?
But, though it is sufficiently evident that the hu-
man soul is somewhat distinct from the body — an
immaterial, thinking substance; and though we
can easily conceive that it is capable of conscious-
ness and of internal activities, and of spiritual
inter-communion, in a state of separation from the
body; yet, inasmuch as all we have ever experi-
enced, and all we thus positively know of its action
and development, has been in connection with and
by means of a bodily organization, — by what sort
of philosophy are we to conclude that of course
and of a certainty it will have no need of its bod-
ily organization, either for. its continued existence
or even for its full action,' progress, and enjoyment

RESURRECTION

in a future state V How do we know that the hu-
man soul is not, in its very nature, so constituted
as to need a botlily organization for the complete
play and exercise of its powers in every stage of
its existence? So that it would, perhaps, be in-
consistent with the wisdom of its Creator to pre-
serve it in an imperfect and mutilated state, a
mere wreck and relic of itself and its noble func-
tions, to all eternity ? And so that, if the soul is
to be continued in immortal life, it certainly is to
be ultimately reunited to the body? Indeed, it
would be quite as philosophical to conclude that
the soul could not exist at all, or, at least, could
not act, could not even exercise its consciousness,
without the body; as to conclude that, without
the body, it could continue in the full exercise of
its powers.

Both these conclusions are contradicted by the
Scripture doctrine of a future Ufe. On the one
hand, the soul is not unconscious while separated
from the body, but is capable of enjoying the
blissful spiritual presence and communion of Christ;
for to be absent from the body is to be present
with the Lord, and to be thus absent, and present
with Christ, is "far better" than to be here at
home in the body; and, on the other hand, that
the full fruition, the highest expansion, the freest
activity, and the complete glorification of the soul,
are not attained until the resurrection of the body
is evident from the whole tenor of evangelical and
apostolical instruction, and especially from the foct
that the resurrection of the body — the re<lemp-
tion of the body — is constantly set forth as the
highest and ultimate goal of Christian hope. As
Christians, therefore, we should not prefer the ab-
strivct immortaUty of heathen philosophy, which,
sad and shadowy as it was, could never be proved,
to the resurrection-immortality of the Scriptures,
which is revealed to us on Divine authority, and
established by incontrovertil)le evidence. Nor should
we seek to complete the heathen idea by engrafting
upon it what we arbitrarily choose of the Scripture
doctrine. If any portion of this doctrine is to be
received, the whole is to be received ; there is the
same evidence for the whole that there is for a
part; for, if any part is denied, the authority on
which the remainder rests is annulled. At all
events, our business here is to state, not so much
what the true doctrine is, as what the Biblical doc-
trine is.

In saying, therefore, that if the body be not
raised, there is no Scripture hope of a future life
for the soul, we do not exalt the flesh above the
spirit, or the resurrection of the body above the
immortility of the soul. We only designate the
condition on which alone the Scriptures assure us
of spiritual immortality, the evidence by which
alone it is proved. " As in Adam all die, even
so in Christ shall all be made alive." Christ
brought life and immortality to light, not by au-
thoritatively asserting the dogma of the immortal-
ity of the soul, but by his own resurrection from
the dead.

That the resurrection on which St. Paul so
earnestly insists (1 Cor. xv.) is conceived of by
him as involving the whole question of a future
life must be evident beyond dispute. See particu-
larly vv. 12-19, 29-32.

8. The New Testament doctrine of immortality
is, then, its doctrine of the resurrection. And its
doctrine of the resurrection we are now prepared
to show involves the following points : —

RESURRECTION

2711

(1) The resurrection of the body;

(2) The resurrection of this same body;

(3) The resurrection in a different body;

(4) That, a resurrection yet future; and

(5) A i-esuri-ectidn of all men at the last day.

(1.) The New Testament doctrine of the resur-
rection is the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.
That in the fifteenth chapter of his epistle to the
Corinthians, St. Paul teaches the Christian doctrine
of immortality, we have shown above. His doc-
trine is supposed by some to be too refined, as they
say, to be consistent with a proper resurrection of
the body; and so they would contradistinguish St.
Paul's view from other and grosser views, whether
in the New Testament or elsewhere. But on the
other hand the truth seems to be that St. Paul
does not give us any special or peculiarly Pauline
view of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection,
but only a fuller exposition and defense of it than
the New Testament elsewhere contains. The
Pauline doctrine we accept as the Chi'istian doc-
trine. And that the resurrection of which he si)eaks
not only implies the immortality of the soul, but is,
or necessarily and primarily implies, a resurrection
of tne body,' is abundantly evident. That the
resurrection of Christ, on which his whole argu-
ment is based, was a resurrection of the body,
would seem beyond dispute. Otherwise, if Christ's
resurrection is to signify only the immortality
of his soul, what means his rising on the third
day f Did his soul become immortal on the
third day? Was his soul shut up in Joseph's
sepulchre that it should come forth thence ? Did
his soul have the print of the nails in its hands
and feet ? Did his soul have flesh and bones, as
he was seen to have? Besides, if there is to be
any proper sense in the term resurrection, that
which has fallen must be that which is raised.
The resurrection, therefore, must be a resurrection
of the body. " He shall change our vile body that
it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,
according to the working whereby he is able even
to subdue all things unto himself." The doc-
trine of the resurrection, as taught by St. Paul,
exposed him to the mockery of the Epicureans
and Stoioe; it must therefore have been a resurrec-
tion of the f^nly, for the immortality of the soul
would have been no theme of mockery to any
school of Greek philosophers. The immortality of
the soul, though, for want of sufficient evidence, it
might not be believed, was never rejected as in-
credible ; but St. Paul's appeal is, " why should
it seem a thing incredible with you that God
should raise the dead? "

(2. ) Moreover it is the resurrection of this iden-
tical body, of which the apostle speaks. The res-
urrection of Christ, which is the type and first
fruits of ours, was manifestly the resurrection of
his own body, of that very body which had been
placed in Joseph's sepulchre. Otherwise, if it
were merely the assumption of a body, of some
body as a fit covering and organ of the soul, why
is it said of his body that it saw no corruption?
And what signifies his exhibiting to Thomas his
hands and his side as means of his identification ?
When his disciples went to the sepulchre they
found not the body of the Lord Jesus. What had
become of it ? That was the question. They felt
that question properly and sufficiently answered
when they found that he had risen from the dead.

"It is sown in corruption," says the Apostle;
"it is raised in incorruption." VVhat is raised

2712

RESURRECTION

if it be not what is sown ? and what is sown if it
be not the body ? " This corruptible," the Apos-
tle plainly adds, " this corniptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on im-
mortality." So then, it is not the incorruptible
soul that shall put on an incorruptible body, nor
the immortal soul that shall put on an immortal
body; but it is this corruptible and mortal body
which is to put on — i. e., to assume, what it has
not yet and in its own nature, an incorruptible
and immortal constitution and ofganization, and
so be reunited to the incorruptible and immortal
soul.

It was suo;<;ested' by Locke, and is often repeated
by others, that " the resurrection of the body,"
though confessed in the creed, is nowhere spoken
of in the Scriptures, but only " the resurrection
of the dead " ; — a statement which furnishes a re-
markable illustration of the fact that a proposition
may be verbally true and yet practically false.
And, indeed, it can hardly be said to be even ve7'-
hally true; for, besides the resurrection of our
Saviour's body, we read in the Scriptures that
" many bodies of saints which slept arose and came
out of their graves after his resurrection " ; and, in
general, that " our vile body shall be changed and
fashioned like to his glorious body."

If the resurrection imports merely the assump-
tion of a body, of some body, and not of tlie body,
of this identical body, then why are the dead rep-
resented as coming forth, coming forth from their
graves, coming forth from the body sown as the
plant grows up out of the earth from the seed that
has been deposited in it? What have they more
to do with their graves, or with the mass of cor-
ruption which has been buried in the earth ? The
souls of the faithful departed are now with Christ;
and to what end should they be made to come
forth again from their graves at their resurrection
upon his final appearing, — if they are then merely
to assume a body, some body, which shall have
nothing to do with the body which was laid in
the tomb? " We shall all be changed," says the
Apostle. He certainly does not mean that we shall
be changelings. He does not say that our bodies
shall be exchanged for others, but " we shall be
changed," i. e., our bodies shall undergo a change,
a transformation whereby from natural they shall
become spiritual bodies, so that this very corrupt-
ible itself shall put on incorruption.

Thus, though it is this very mortal body, this
identical body, that shall be raised from the dead,
it yet remains true that "flesh and blood," as such
and unchanged, " cannot inherit the kingdom of
God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
"It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spir-
itual body."

(3.) And this brings us to the third point,
that the resurrection of this same body is at
once a resurrection in a different body.

But some will say, what sort of body is a
spiritual body? Is not the expression a contra-
diction in terms? The answer is, that a spirit-
ual body is a body fitted by its constitution to
be the eternal habitation of the pure and immor-
tal spirit. How a body must be constituted in
order to be fitted for such a purpose, we do not
know and cannot tell. But that for anything we
do know or can urge to the contrary, there may be
such a body — proper material body — without
any contradiction or absurdity, St. Paul labors to
demonstrate by a multitude of illustrations show-

RESURRECTION

ing the vast diversity that exists among the
bodies with which we are actually acquainted
(1 Cor. XV. 39-44). Among all this variety of
bodies, therefore, which Almighty power is able to
constitute, there certainly may be, and the Apostle
asserts that there certainly is, a spiritual body.

Some, supposing that the term spiritual was in-
tended to describe the internal or essential consti-
tution, rather than to indicate the use and purpose,
of this resurrection body, have surmised that it
would consist of some most refined and spiritualized
kind of matter : and have suggested that it might
be of an aerial, ethereal, or gaseous nature. But all
such speculations transcend the bounds of our
knowledge, and of our necessity; and ai-e apt to
end in something gross and grovelling, or subli-
mated and meaningless. The term spiinttial, as
already said, is here used by the Apostle to indi-
cate, not how the resurrection body is constituted,
but that it is so constituted as to be a fit abode for
the spirit in an eternal and spiritual world.

In the contrasted expression " natural body," the
term natural {\pvxiK6s) means, hi the original, an-
imal or animated, psychical, ensouled, — if the word
may be allowed ; which surely does not imply that
this body is composed of soul or of soul-like sub-
stance, but that it is fitted to be the abode and or-
gan of the animal or animating part of man, of the
sensitive soul. And thus we can understand the
pertinence of the Apostle's allusion to Genesis, which
otherwise must seem — as it probably does to ordi-
nary readers — quite irrelevant and unmeaning.
Having laid down the assertion, " there is a natu-
ral body, and there is a spiritual body," he adds:
" And so it is written. The first man Adam was
made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quick-
ening spirit." Now the word which is translated
natural is directly derived from that translated
soul, and thus the connection and the argument be-
come plain and obvious ; as if the Apostle had said,
" There is a soul-body, and there is a spirit-body ;
and so it is written. The first man Adam was made
a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit."

For it is to be observed that the Scriptures often
make a distinction between soul and spirit, as well
as between soul and body. Man, according to this
Scripture philosophy, is viewed, not as bipartite
but as tripartite, not as consisting of soul and body,
but of body, soul, and spirit. So viewed, the body
is the material organization, the soul is the animal
and sensitive part, the spirit is the rational and im-
mortal, the divine and heavenly part. It is true
we are now, for the most part, accustomed to use
soul as synonymous with spirit, — and so the Scrip-
tures more frequently do, but they recognize also
the distinction just pointed out. In Scripture
phrase, the spirit is the highest part of man, the
organ of the Divinity within him, that part which
alone apprehends divine things and is susceptible
of divine influences. Hence the Apostle says, " The
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither
can he know them because they are spiritually dis-
cerned " — where the term natural is, in the orig-
inal, again ypvxixSs, 2^sychic, i. e. animal, pertaining
to the soul. There are but two other cases in which
the word is used in the New Testament, and in both
it is translated sensiial: James iii. 15, " earthly,
sensual, devilish"; and Jude 19, '■'■ sensual, having
not the Spirit." Thus, therefore, as the natural,
or sensual, or animal, or psychical body, or the

RESURRECTION

soul-body, is a body, not constituted of soul-sub-
stance, but fitted for the use and habitation of
the sensitive soul ; so we conclude that the spirit-
ual body is a body, not constituted or composed of
spiritual substance — which would be a contradic-
tion, — but a tnie and proper body, a material
body, fitted for the use and eternal habitation of
the immortal spirit.

The thought is sometimes suggested, in one form
or another, tiiat these bodies of ours are vile and
worthless, and do not deserve to be raised; and,
therefore, that the spiritual body will have nothing
to do with them. But it must be remembered
that Christianity does not teach us to despise, to
abuse, or to hate the body, vile and corruptible as
it is. That is a Manichean and heathen no-
tion. It is true, our present body may be viewed
both as an organ and as an incumbrance of the
soul. So far as it is an organ it is to l>e re-
stored ; so far as it is an incumbrance it is to be
changed. This mortal is to put on immortality.
That which is sown in corruption is to be raised in
incorruption. Christ at his appearing shall " change
our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto
his glorious body." Tliat the spiritual body is to
be a modification of the natural l)ody, being as-
sumed or clothed upon it as a new and glorious
form ; that the one is to have a real, proper, and
organic connection with the other, growing out of
it as it were; so that each person will have, at the
resurrection, not only an appropriate body, but his
own body, seems sufficiently evident from tiie Ajws-
tle's whole argument (1 Cor. xv.), and particularly
from his illustration of the various plants which
grow up from the seed cast into the ground. Each
plant has an organic connection with its seed, and
God giveth " to every seed his own body." It is
the seed itself which is transformed into the plant
which rises from it.

(4.) The resurrection of the body, of this same
body, of this same Ixidy transformed into a new and
spinlual bwly, is an event yet future.

" As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive. But," adds the Apostle, "every
man in his own order : Christ the first fruits, after-
wards they that are Christ's at his cominfj.''' Many
men had died before Christ, men with immortal
souls, yet none had l)een raised from the dead to
immortal life before Him ; He is the first fruits, the
first-born, the first-begotten from the dead. Nor
is it said that any shall be raised after Him until
his coming. Then the last trumpet shall sound, and
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we who
are alive and remain shall be changed. If the Chris-
tian doctrine of the resurrection were only this, that
at the moment of death each soul receives a spiritual
body fitted to its eternal state, why was not Christ
raised till the third day ? And why does the Apostle
represent the resurrection of which he treats as
both future and simultaneous for " them that are
Christ's at his coming ^^ f Nor can we suppose the
Apostle here to teach a merely spiritual resurrec-
tion, a resurrection from sin to holiness; for if so,
why does he say that it shall take place at the
sound of the last trump ? And what would become
of the distinction made between the dead who are
to be raised, and the living who are to be changed ?

(5.) This future resurrection of the body is to
be a resurrection of all men at the last day.

This has partly appeared already under the pre-
ceding heads. We have seen that this is true of
aU that are ChrisVs ; but whether, in 1 Cor. xv.,
171

RESURRECTION

2713

the Apostle teaches the final resurrection of all
mankind may be a question. He does indeed say,
" in Christ all shall be made alive," but whether
this means absolutely all, or only all who are in
Christ, may fairly be doubted. Perhaps the Apos-
tle's meaning here might be thus paraphrased:
" For as, by virtue of their connection with Adam,
who, by sin, incurred the sentence of death, all men
who are in him by nature, being sinners and actu-
ally sinning, die: even so, by virtue of their con-
nection with Christ, who, by his righteousness, is
the restorer of life, shall all men who are vitally
united to Him by faith, be made alive, being raised
from the dead in his glorious image." But what-
ever may be the meaning of those particular words,
it is, no doubt, the doctrine of Scripture that all,
absolutely all the dead will be raised. St. Paul
himself elsewhere unequivocally declares his belief
— and declares it, too, as the common belief not
only of the Christians, but of the Jews (the Phari-
sees) of his time, — that " there shall be a resurrec-
tion of the dead, both of the just and unjust " (Acts
xxiv. 15).

But it by no means follows that all will rise iu
the same glorious bodies, or be admitted to the
same immortal blessedness. On the contrary, it
was expressly pretlicted of old that "some shall
awake to everlasting life, and some to shame and
everlasting contempt; " — not to annihilrttion as an
everlasting death opposed to the everlasting life,
but to shame and everlasllmj contempt, which must
imply continued conscious existence. And our
Ix)rd Himself, having made the declaration : " the
hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall
hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that
hear shall live; " — which may refer, and probably
does chiefly refer, to a moral and spiritual resurrec-
tion ; — expressly and solemnly adds : " Marvel not
at this; for the hour is coming (he does not add,
and now is), in the which all that are in the graves
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that
have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and
they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
damnation " (John v. 25, 28, 29).

The future bodies of the wicketl may, for aught
we know, be as ignominious, hideous, and loath-
some, as perfectly fitted to be instruments and in-
lets of unending and most exquisite pain and tor-
ment, as the bodies of the saints shall be glorious
and happy. The Scripture doctrine contains noth-
ing positive on this point. St. i'aul having briefly
stated that " in Christ all shall be made alive," even
if in this he meant to include the wicked, gives no
further account of their resurrection ; but goes on
immediately to speak of those who are Christ's at
his coming; and thenceforth confines his attention
exclusively to them. This was natural for the Apos-
tle, who nevertheless certainly believed in a resurrec-
tion of the unjust as well as of the just; as it is still
for Christians, who believe the same. The special
Christian doctrine of the resurrection is a doctrine
of hope and joy ; but as such it is a doctrine in
which those who are not Christ's — who have not
the Spirit of Christ, — have no share.

This resurrection is to be one general resurrec-
tion at the last day.

That such was the received doctrine in the time
of our Lord is evident from John xi. ^'i, 24: " Je-
sus saith unto her, thy brother shall rise again.
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise
again in the resurrection at the last day." Our
Lord himself seems to recognize this doctrine in

2714 RESURRECTION

his frequent use of the phrase, " I will raise him up
at the last day," John vi. 39, 40, 44, 54. The
same doctrine is distinctly taught by St. Paul (1
Thess. iv. 14-18). As to the date of the coming
of the Lord, of which he speaks, and that it will
have a reference to the wicked as well as to the
just, see the first teti verses of the next chapter.
See also the second epistle ; particularly 2 Thess.
i. 7-10. And for the date, see again 2 Thess. ii.
1-5. It is evident that the day of the coming of
the Lord was, in St. Paul's view, in the uncertain
future. It one sense it was always at hand, in an-
other sense it was not at hand, 2 Thess. ii. 2. That
he did not presume that he himself should be alive
and remain unto the coming of the Lord, is plain
from his solemn protestation (1 Cor. xv. 31) of his
standing in such hourly jeopardy that he lived in
the immediate prospect of death every day ; while,
in the very same connection and chapter (1 Cor.
XV. 52) he associates himself with those who shall
be alive at the sounding of the last trump, as he
had also done at 1 Thess. iv. 15-17. But it is not
to be forgotten that elsewhere he expressly associ-
ates himself with those who will have departed be-
fore the coming of the Lord ; — 2 Cor. iv. 14 :
" Knowing that He which raised up the Lord Jesus
shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us
with you ; " note also the whole context in this
and in the following chapter. Now this second
epistle to the Corinthians was written almost
immediately after the first. Nor does he after-
wards betray the slightest symptom of disappoint-
ment in the prospect of his approaching martyr-
dom (2 Tim. iv. 6-8). If the Apostle had felt
that he had been grossly deluded and deceived in
regard to "that day," and "his appearing," and
been left, " by the word of the Lord," to lead others
into the same delusion and error, would he have
retained this triumphant confidence at the last, and
expressed it without one word of explanation or
retractation of his (alleged) former delusive hopes?
There is one passage in the Apocalypse which
seems inconsistent with the doctrine of one general
resurrection at the last day (Rev. xx.). Here we
have a "first resurrection," either of all the saints
or of the martyrs only : and, after a long interval,
a general resurrection and judgment. How this
representation is to be interpreted is a subject of
doubt and dispute. It may be difficult to reconcile
it with the other statements of Scripture on the
same sulyect. But, at farthest, it would separate
into only two great portions or acts, that which is
elsewhere regarded in one point of view.

III. The Christian doctrine of the Resur-
rection NOT IMPOSSIBLE OR INCREDIBLE.

Before proceeding to defend this doctrine against
objections, it may be proper to state distinctly what
the doctrine is, and what it is not. It is, (1) that
there wiU be a general resurrection at the last day
of the bodies of all mankind.

(2.) That the body in which each man will be
raised will be the same as that in which he had
lived; but changed, transformed at the resurrec-
tion, so as, from a natural body, to become a
spiiitual body ; it will be at once the same and
different.

Such is the doctrine ; but hoio far and in what
respects the spiritual bodies will be the same as the
natural bodies — besides that they will have an
organic connection with them ; how far they will
be like them in size, in form, in organization, in

RESURRECTION

limbs, in functions; whether, e. g., they will have
the hair, beard, nails, etc. ; how far they may be
subject to the physical laws of material things with
which we are conversant ; whether they will have
the same senses as the natural bodies, or more or
less; whetlier they will have fixed forms, or the
power of assuming various forms; what will be
their essential constitution, or hoio they may exer-
cise their functions in relation either to the spiritual
or the material world — except that they will be
real bodies ("flesh and bones "), though not cor-
ruptible bodies ("flesh and blood"); the doctrine
neither affirms nor denies. These are all njatters
of mere speculation. To the question, " How are
the dead raised up ? and with what bodies do they
come?" the Scriptures vouchsafe no further an-
swer than "spiritual bodies," "hke Christ's glori-
ous body." His body retained the print of the
nails, and the rent in the side after his resurrec-
tion, but it appeared also in various forms; he ate
and drank with his disciples after his resurrection,
but so did the angels eat with Abraham; that
body at length rose above the clouds, disappeared
from the gaze of his disciples, and ascended to the
right hand of God ; it was seen afterwards by St.
Stephen in heavenly glory, and by St. Paul in a
manifestation of overwhelming splendor. But after
all no decision is furnished in regard to those
speculative questions ; and the positive doctrine of
Scripture is left within the limits already stated.

And now it remains to show that there is noth-
ing impossible or incredible involved in this doc-
trine.

(1.) It is objected that a material organization
cannot possibly be made incorruptible and immor-
tal, and fitted to a spu'itual state and spiritual
purposes. But how does the objector know this ?

(2.) It is said to be impossible that the identical
body should be raised, because that body will have
gone entirely out of existence, and in order for a
resurrection or a restoration to take place, the thing
so restored or raised must necessarily be in ex-
istence.

This must mean one of two things : either, that,
as a definite body, in respect to its form and
constitution, it has ceased to exist; or that, in
respect to its very substance and the material
which composed it, it has been annihilated.

The latter sense cannot be intended by an ob-
jector who recognizes the law of nature, that no
particle of matter is ever lost. And according to
the former sense, the objector would make the
restoration, reconstruction, reorganization of any
body, under any circumstances, and on any hy-
pothesis, a sheer absurdity; for, in order that a
body may be restored, reconstructed, reorganized,
he expressly makes it necessary that it should
already exist, actually constructed and organized.
Is this self-evident ? or, perhaps the position of the
objector comes to this: if a house, e. g., has fallen
to ruin, and you restore it as it was before, it is not
the same house; but if you restore it when it is
not dilapidated, or reconstruct it without taking it
to pieces — however great the changes you may
make — it will be the same house. But does re-
storing mean merely repairing? And do recon-
structing and reorganizing mean merely changing
the existing structure and organization? If so,
these words, as well as the word "resurrection," are
commonly used in an abusive sense, or rather with
no sense at all.

(3.) But it is thought that, even though the

RESURRECTION

body n)ight be restored if it were simply resolved
into dust, yet, inasmuch as it is resolved into
elementary principles, into oxygen and other gases,
which become mixed and confounded with the mass
of gases of the same kind, or combined variously
with gases of different kinds, it is impossible that
the same portions of these gases should 1)6 segre-
gated and brought together into the same body
again.

This will require careful consideration. We take
for granted that the "elementary principles " into
which the body is said to l)e resohed are matter,
true and proper niStter. This they certainly are
unless our metaphysical analysis is prosecuted be-
yond all our chemical tests. At all events, they
are either matter or not matter. If they are not
matter, then masses of niatter have been aimi-
hilated. If they are true and proper matter, then,
like all matter, they are, or consist of, material
particles. And the definite, identical, material
particles of a cubic incii of oxygen are no more
annihilated or absolutely lost or confoundetl by
being mixed with another cubic inch, or with ten
thousand cubic feet, of oxygen gas, than are the
definite identical particles of a cubic inch of ilust
by being mixed with any quantity of homogeneous
dust. It is certainly assuming more than is seif-
evident to say that omniscience cannot identify
them and trace them through their new combina-
tions, and that omnipotence cannot segregate them
and restore them to tlieir former connections. It
is not here contendetl that this could be done by
any human power or merely natural process, but it
is insisted that the thing involves no contradiction,
and therefore is not absolutely impossible. The
case just stated involves precisely the pinching
point of the objection, if it pinches anywhere. For,
as to saying that one simple substance loses its
identity by entering into coin/Msition with another
simple substance, that is plainly false even on nat-
ural principles. Let us try a few instances.

If a cert;iiii number of grains of pure cop{)er be
combined with their definite projwrtion of oxygen,
and this oxyde of copj)er be dissolved in nitric acid,
we shall have the nitrate of copper, which may
exist in a perfectly liquid form. Hut by decom-
posing this nitrate of copper the pure copper may
be reproduced — the very same copper and no other
— the identical copper with which the process was
begun. Now copper is as truly an "elementary
principle " as oxygen gas.

But gases themselves may be recovered from their
combinations as well as metals. Let a quantity
of oxygen and hydrogen be combined in due pro-
portion for forming water. Let the water be de-
composed by means of a quantity of potassium,
and the hydrogen will be liberated, the very same
hydrogen as at first; and the potash being after-
ward? decomjx)sed, the original, identical oxygen
may also be recovered. If, in these processes, some
portion of the original, simple substances should
escape from us, it would only show the imperfec-
tion of our manipulations, but would not in the
sUghtest degree affect the applicability and force of
the argument for the present purposes. That is a
mere business of degrees. No principle is in-
volved in the recovery of the whole, which is not
involved in the recovery of a part. If, then, with
our limited, practical powers, we can recover a part,
surely it cannot be said to transcend the powers of
omnijxitence to reco\er the whole.

So much for the cases of inorganic combina-

RESURRECTION

2715

tions. Now take cases which involve the organic
influence of the principle of life.

Let a quantity of calcium and a quantity of
phosphorus be respectively combined with a due
proportion of oxygen; let the lime be combined
with the phosphoric acid; and let this phosphate
be mixed with a soil (or, certain ingredients of a
soil) which did not before contain a particle of
calcium or phosphorus. I^t some grains of wheat
be planted in that soil; and, by an analysis of the
product, we may obtain, in its original simple form,
a portion at least of the identical calcium and
phosphorus with which we began, mingled, per-
haps, in this case, with a small proportion of each
of those substances derived I'rom the seed.

One case more: A takes certiiin crystals of
arsenic, and, having pulverized them and combined
the metal with tlie proj)er proportion of oxygen,
mingles the [Xiison with li's food, who swallows it
and dies. Some time after, by an analysis of tlie
contents and coatings of IVs stomach, the arsenic
is recovered and recrystallized. It either is or is
not the identical arsenic which A gave. If it can
be proved to the satisfaction of a jury that it is not
the same, then the evidence that A is guilty of the
alleged act of poisoning li, is not at all increased
by the detection of this arsenic in IJ's stomach, for
it is not the arsenic which A is alleged to have
administered, but some other.

If it be siiid that the arsenic as a mass is indeed
the same, but that the individual crystals are not
" identical " with those originally pulverized, the
answer is, that thus the si>ecific pouit now in ques-
tion is yielded, namely, that the alleged impossi-
bility of the resurrection of the "identical" body
cannot arise in any degree from the fact that the
simple elements, into which it has been resolved,
enter into neio combinations. The whole difficulty
is carried hack to the point to which we have
already referred it, namely, the fact that these
simple elements become mingled with other quan-
tities of homogeneous elements. We admit, in
the case supposed, a very high degree of improba-
bility that the reprotlucetl crystals of areenic are,
each of them, identical, as a matter of fact, with
some one of the original crystals. I Jut can any
one pi"o\e tljat, as a matter of fact, they certainly
are not identical; still more, can he prove that it
is absolutely impossible and self-contradictory that
they should be ? As to the sup[)osition of mechan-
ical marks or defects, they could not indeed be re-
produced by crystallization ; but the identity being
in other respects restored, they could easily be
reproduced, or very nearly approximated, by me-
chanical means.

We plant ourselves at one of those original
crystals. It consists of certain individual and
identical, though homogeneous, particles, arranged
according to a certain law in certain definite rela-
tive positions. It is dissolved; and its particles
are mingled with other homogeneous particles.
Now the question is, can it be rationally conceived
that those original particles should be segregated
from their present mixture, and restored, each and
all, to their original relative positions, and the
whole to its original form ? AVe freely admit that
such a result cannot be secured by any skill of
man ; but we fearlessly assert that the accomplish-
ment of such a result cannot be proved to tran-
scend the power and wisdom of Almighty God,
who can identify every particle of matter which he
has created, and control its movements from begin-

2716

RESURRECTION

iiing to end according to the counsels of his own
will. We not only assert that such a result can
be conceived to be accomplished by the exercise of
mintadous power, but we assert that its actual
accomplishment would not violate any known pos-
itive laws of nature, but would be in perfect ac-
cordance with them all; and, indeed, is one of the
possible contingencies under those laws. But the
most scientific men will confess that there may be
exceptions to the recognized laws of nature, or
perhaps we should rather say, higher laws harmo-
nizing both the rule and the exception ; laws which
may transcend the scope of their loftiest general-
izations.

If, finally, it be insisted that, after all, the crys-
tal so reproduced, i. e. with all its original parti-
cles in all their original relations, is not " identical "
with the original crystal; then the word "identi-
cal" must be used in a sort of hyper-metaphysical
sense in which it is not applicable to material, vis-
ible things at all. For, according to such a view,
supposing an ultimate particle of water to consist
of a particle of oxygen united to a particle of hy-
drogen (and the contrary cannot be proved), it
Avould follow that, if this particle of water be
decomposed into the two gaseous particles, the re-
union of these same gaseous particles would not
reproduce the "identical," original particle of
water, but a diflferent one. And a JbrtioiH it
would follow that an ounce of water being decom-
posed and the same elements reunited, or being
converted into steam, and tlmt steam condensed,
or even being poured out of one vessel into another,
or merely shaken in the same vessel, the water
which would result and remain would not be
"identical" with the original water, but somewhat
different. Hence it would follow that, as all visi-
ble material things are in a constant flux, the idea
of identity would be absolutely inapplicable to any-
thing in the physical universe, except, perhaps, to
the elementary and unchangeable constituent par-
ticles. Nay more, it would follow that all such
words as reproduction, reorganization, restoration,
and even reminiscence itself, not to speak of " res-
urrection," involve a logical absurdity; and not
only so, but the very terms "identical with" are
nonsensical; for, inasmuch as, in every, proposition
which conveys any meaning, the predicate must be
conceived, in some respect, diverse from the sub-
ject, to assert that the one is " identical with " the
other is a downright and palpable self-contradiction.

(4.) The general resurrection of the bodies of
all mankind is sometimes said to be impossible, for
want of material wherewith to reconstruct them.
It has been gravely asserted that after a few gen-
erations more shall have passed away, there will
not be matter enough in the whole globe of the
earth to reconstruct all the bodies of the dead.

To this it is suflacient to say that, even if such
a reconstruction as the objector presumes were ne-
cessary — which it is not — there is more than
weight and mass enough of matter in the atmos
phere which presses upon the surface of the Brit-
ish Islands, or of the States of New England, New
York, and New Jersey (as will be found upon a
rigid mathematical computation, allowing the pres-
sure upon each square foot to be 2,000 lbs., and
the average weight of the bodies to be 75 lbs. each),
than would be necessary to reconstruct all the bod-
ies of mankind which should have existed upon
the earth more than 2,000,000 of years from this
time; — and that, supposing three generations in

RESURRECTION

a century all the way from Adam onwards, and a
continuous i)opulation of 1,400,000,000 of inhab-
itants.

(5.) It is objected that the same particles may
have constituted a part of several successive human
bodies at the moment of their dissolution; and
therefore it is impossible that each of these bodies
should be raised identical with that which was dis-
solved. This brings the idea of the resurrection
of the identical body nearer to an apparent contra-
diction than any other form of objection that we
know of.

There are at least two ways of answering this
objection, {a.) However likely the alleged fact
may be, unless its absolute certainty can be de-
monstrated, there is room left for the possibility
of the contrary. How can we know but that God
so watches over the dust of every human body,
and so guides it in all its transmigrations that it
shall never be found to constitute a part of any
other human body lohen that body dies? Thus
the objection is answered by demanding proof of
the alleged fact on which it is based, (b.) As our
bodies are constantly undergoing change while we
live without being thereby destroyed or losing their
identity, so the "identical" body being raised, it
may undergo an instantaneous change to an indefi-
nite extent. It may, therefore, be instantly di-
vested of any particles which may be required for
the reconstruction of another body; and this last
being reconstructed, any needed particles may be
transferred to a third; and so on, to any extent.
We have only to suppose, therefore, that the bod-
ies of mankind shall be raised successively, in the
order of their dissolution (at intervals however
small, infinitely small if you please, so that there
shall be a practical simultaneousness); and though
a certain particle should have been common to
every one, having passed through the whole series
in six or eight thousand, or million, of years, yet
it may be caused to circulate through the whole
number again, as they may be successively raised,
in less than the millionth part of the least assign-
able instant of time; for no limit can be set to
the possible rapidity of motion. Thus the objec-
tion is answered, admitting the allegation on which
it is based.

It may be said that these are violent supposi-
tions. We may admit it ; but at the same time
we have four things to say with that admission.
(a.) Neither of those suppositions is, like the cre-
ation of matter from nothing, absolutely incon-
ceivable to our minds, (b.) If the objection alleged
merely a high degree of apparent improbability
instead of an absolute impossibility, we should not
urge such suppositions in reply to it. (c.) Those
suppositions are made in answer to the objection
taken on its own principles, and entirely irrespec-
tive of what may be the actual doctrine of Sciip-
ture on this question, {d.) However violent the
suppositions suggested may be, they will answer
their present purpose of refutation, and it will be
seen in the sequel that we shall have no need of
them.

(6.) The objector has all along proceeded upon
the assumption, that the resuiTection of this iden-
tical body necessarily involves, (1) that the body
raised must be identical with the body as it existed
and was constituted at the moment of death ; and
(2) that, in order to be thus identical, it must con-
sist of the very same particles inclusively and ex
clusively, arranged in the very same positions, cora>

RESURRECTION

binations, and relationships. We have above
undertaken to refute the objections, even on the
adniis<.ion of both those assumptions; but now we
deny them both. And we assert that in order to
a resurrection of the body — of this identical body,
in a true, proper, scriptural, and "human" sense, —
it is neither necessary, in the first place, that the
body raised should be identical with the precise
body which expired the last breath ; nor, in the
second place, that it should be identical with any
body whatever, in so strict a sense as that de-
manded.

The first point can be settled at once. Here is
a man at the age of thirty years, in perfect health
and soundness of body and mind. Before he dies,
he may lose his arras or his legs; he may become
blind and deaf, or a maniac ; he may die in utter
decrepitude. Now, if, at the last day, the body
£;iven him should be identical with his present
body instead of being identical with that mutilated
or decrepit frame with which he will have died,
would there be no resurrection of the body, no
resurrection of his own proper body ? Would it be
a " new creation " instead of a resurrection, sim-
ply because the raised body would not be identi-
cal with the body precisely as it existed and was
constituted at the moment of death? Does a
man's body never become his oiim until he dies —
until he loses possession of it ? What becomes,
then, of all the horror so often expressed at the
imagined reappearance of the lame, the blind, the
halt, the withered, the crippled, the maniac, the
savage V Why not insist also upon the resuscitation
of the fevers and ague fits, the cancers and lepro-
sies, the gouts and rheumatisms, and all the mortal
diseases and ills the flesh was heir to at the moment
of death? In short, why not maintain that, if
the body is raised at all, it must be, when raised, in
the very actof dyimj again'? for the internal states
are as essential to identity as the external features !

We turn now to the second point, namely, that,
in order to a proper resurrection of the body, it is
not necessary that the body raised should.be iden-
tical with any former body whatever, in such a
sense as that it must consist of precisely the same
elementary particles, neither more or less, arranged
in precisely the same positions, combinations, and
relationships.

Now it is a well-known fact, that not only does
a great change take place in our bodies between the
periods of infancy and old age, but, while we live,
they are constantly in a process of change, so that
the body which we have at one moment is not
perfectly "identical" with that which we had at
any preceding moment; and some physiologists
have estimated that every particle of our material
fi*ame is changed in the course of about seven years.
From this fact it follows that no person ever wakes
with that identical body with which he went to
sleep, yet the waking man does not fail to i*ecog-
nize himself. But according to this strict notion
of identity, as often as the body sleeps, it sleeps an
eternal sleep, and the body with which a man wakes
is always a " new creation," for the body which
wakes is never "identical" with that which was
lulled to slumber! Surely such absurdities will
not be maintained. We will suppose, therefore, the
body which rises to differ from the body which
lived before only to the same extent as the body
which wakes differs from the body which fell asleep ;
would there then be a resurrection of the body in
any proper sense? If so then our proposition is

RESURRECTION

2717

estabUshed and the opposite assumption is over-
thrown. And, besides, a principle is thus gained
which reaches much farther than is barely neces-
sary to overthrow that assumption ; for, if a slight
difference is consistent with such a practical and
substantial identity as is required for a proper res-
urrection of the body, will any one tell us pre-
cisely the limit of this difference ; except that there
must be some organic or real historical connection,
something continuously in common, between the
body which is raised and that which lived before?
And so much we shall certainly maintain.

Let us here amuse ourselves a moment in con-
structing an hypothesis.

A distinguished physiologist, Johannes Miiller,
has given a well-known theory of the " vital prin-
ciple." " Life is a principle," says he, " or impon-
derable matter, which is in action, in the substance
of the germ, enters into the composition of the
matter of this germ, and imparts to organic com-
binations properties which cease at death." Now
the principle of animal life in man is presumed to
be distinct from the intelligent and immortal spirit.
On these premises, let us suppose that, in the
economy of human nature it is so ordered that,
when the spirit leaves the body, the vital principle
is neither lost and annihilated on the one hand,
nor on the other able to keep up the functions of
the animal system, but lies dormant in con-
nection with so much of the present, natural
body as constituted the seminal principle or es-
sential germ of that body, and is to serve as a
germ for the future, spiritual body; and this por-
tion may be truly body, material substance, and
yet elude all possible chemical tests and sensible
observation, all actual, physical dissolution, and all
appropriation to any other human body. On the
reunion of the spirit at the appointed hour with
this dormant vital principle and its bodily germ, we
may suppose an instantaneous development of the
spiritual body in whatever glorious form shall seem
good to infinite wisdom. Such a body, so produced,
would involve a proper resurrection of the present
body. The new body would be a continuation of
the old, a proper development from it. The germi-
nal essence is the same, the vital or animal prin-
ciple is the same, the conscious spirit is the same.
The organic connection between the two is as real
as that between any man's present body and the
seminal principle from which it was first developed
in the womb ; as that between the blade of wheat
and the bare grain from which it grew.

We throw out the above not as a doctrine, not
as a theory of the resurrection, but as a mere casual
hypothesis — one among many possible hypotheses.
The part assigned in it to the " vital principle"
may be omitted, if any so prefer. And if the hy-
pothesis as a whole is found not to be consistent
with a proper resurrection oj' the body, it is by all
means to be rejected.

(7.) It is thought quite improbable that the
same bodies will rise with all their present parts,
members, organs, and appurtenances, not to say their
peculiar abnormal developments and defects.

We have already said, the Christian dogma of
the resurrection contains nothing definite on these
points. We have shown that such a resurrection,
in all its details, is not absolutely impossible; but
we have shown that such a resurrection is not
necessary to the proper idea of the resurrection of
the body. We have shown that the body raised
would be the same an the present body, if it pos-

2718

RESURKECTION

RESURRECTION

■essed the same matter and form as the present body
possesses at any petnod tvhatever of its age. We
now add that the resurrection of the same body
does not rwiuire that the body raised should have
all the matter or the precise form of the present
body as it actually existed here at any period of life.
It would be a resurrection of the body, and of the
same body, if all the bodies of tlie dead should be
raised in the vigor and beauty of youth or early
manhood; the infant being instantaneously de-
veloped to su/:h a stature, the aged restored to it,
and all deformities and defects forthwith removed.
And as to organs and membei-s ; doubtless whatever
characteristics of our present bodies will contribute
to the glory and beauty and purposes of the future
body of the Christian will be retained in it; and
whatever characteristics would mar that glory or
beauty or fruition, or interfere with those purposes,
will be changed. It may be that the prints of the
wounds in our Saviour's hands and feet, or some-
thing significantly corresponding to them, may re-
main forever in his glorified body, as visible me-
mentoes of his dying love, as marks of honor and
grace to excite all the redeemed and the holy to still
higher strains of love and adoration and praise.
Since we are to be comforted for our departed
friends by the assurance that " them that sleep in
Jesus God will bring with Him," it may well be
believed that we shall recognize in the future life
those whom we have loved in this ; but to this end
it is not necessary that the spiritual body should
retain all or any of the hneaments of the present
body. The beautiful plant that rises from the
grain that has been sown and has died, diflfers
widely in all its exterrml form and aspect from the
seed, yet by it we can as certainly distinguish its
kind as by the seed itseE And this system of cor-
respondences may reach much further than we have
yet traced it. The spiritual body may have an
intensity and transparency of expression for the
character and individuality of the soul, such as the
brightest mortal face we ever beheld, the clearest
and most soul-expressive eye of mortal mould into
whose depths we ever gazed, could not enable us
to conceive. Then, there may be means of com-
municating thought and feeling in the future
world, as far transcending all the power of the
most perfect human sjieech as that transcends the
inarticulate language of brutes. Thus there may
be abundant means of recognition independent of
any outward identity of form.

(8.) Finally, the resurrection of the body is
thought improbable, because science, in her deepest
researches, finds no symptoms or intimations of
such an event.

It is alleged that, as far as has been ascertained
by chemical or any other physical tests, the human
body is subject to the same laws of development,
growth, and decay, while it lives; and of dissolu-
tion, decomposition, and dispersion, when it dies,
as those to which the bodies of the ox and the
horse are subject. But what does this prove ? Does
it prove that therefore God will not reconstruct and
reanimate the human body ? Is it therefore to be
thought a thing incredible that God should raise
the dead ? We can see no such force of proof in
tho.se facts. We are not aware that anybody has
undertaken to bring positive evidence of a resur-
rection of the body from chemistry or natural phil-
osophy ; and we cannot conceive what disproof there
is in the absence of proof derivable from those
quarters.

But (it is insisted) after the minutest chemical
analysis, after the most patient and thorough test-
ing by all known agents and re-agents, after the
most careful examination, and after ages of ex-
perience, we have never found any more signs of a
tendency to a resurrection in the body of a dead ^1
man than in that of a dead dog. And what then? SI
Therefore there is and can be no resurrection of the
human body ? Most lame and impotent conclusion !
As though we already knew everything pertaining ^ _
to the powers, properties, and possibilities even of fli
material things; as though we were not prying S|
deeper and deeper into the secrets of nature every
day ; as though there were not evidently dynamics
and laws at work in the material world which elude
all our chemical tests and physical re-agents ; and
as though we could set distinctly around and above
the power of Almighty God, which, with its higher,
and perchance forever inscrutable laws, presides over
and controls all the laws and functions of nature.
All positive evidence for a resurrection of the body
nnist be sought for in the teaching of Revelation ;
and that evidence, be it more or less, is not in the
slightest degree affected by this chemico-physical
argument; it is left just as it was and where it
was, entire and intact.

IV. History of the Doctrine.

It remains to give a brief outline of the history
of the doctrine of the Resurrection, as it has been
held in the Christian Church.

The Chiliarchs and Gnostics, from the. first, held
extreme views, the former tending to an unscrip-
tural grossness of detail, and the latter to an equally
unscriptural refining away of the substantial fact.
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian, inclining to
the Chiliarchs, taught a double resurrection. These
and Clemens Romanus, Athenagoras, Theophilus,
and Minutius Felix, all believed in a proper resur-
rection of the body. Origen spiritualized it. (See
Teller, Fides dogm. de Besur. CarJiis, per 4 priora
Secula.) Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa,
and Basil the Great, adopted in part the views of
Origen. Jerome went to an extreme against them.
Augustine ultimately opposed them, but more mod-
erately. Chrysostom believed in the identity of
the body raised and the present body, but followed
St. Paul's exposition. Epiphanius and Theophilus
of Alexandria agreed with Jerome; but Theophilus
ordained Synesius, who could not assent to " the
prevailing notions." [Showing two things: (1)
that certain views, namely, those of Jerome, were
then the prevaihng views, and (2) that to accept
them was not considered (by Theophilus) essential.]
Ruffinus confessed the resurrection hujus carnis,
and John of Jerusalem distinguished between Jlesh
and body, but with neither of them was Jerome
satisfied. Jerome's became the prevailing doctrine
of the Church of Rome, and has so continued sub-
stantially to the present day. The reformers gen-
erally adopted the same doctrine, adhering, however,
more decidedly to the Augustinian and Paulino
representations.

The Socinians, and, after them, the Unitarians,
have been inclined to deny the proper resurrection
of the body. The Sweden borgians also do the same,
holding that each soul, immediately upon death, is
clothed with its spiritual body. Many persons in
all the Protestant communions have, in later years,
felt compelled by the presumed philosophical diffi-
culties of the case, to give up the doctrine of %

REU

proper resurrection of the body, and have either
remained silent, without any avowed or definite
belief upon the subject, or have openly sided with
the SocinLans or the Swedenborgians.

The creeds and the symbols and confessions of
the Reformed Churches, however, have remained
unchanged. See, e. g. Article IV. of the Church
of England, " On the Resurrection of Christ,"
which, speaking of Christ's ascension "with flesh,
bones, and all things api>ertaining to the perfection
of man's nature," covers nearly the whole ground
of hesitation and difficulty. See also all the three
creeds, especially the Athanasian. That of the
Apostles still confesses the Eesuii-ectio camis.

D. R. G.

* For the literature of this subject, one may
consult the bibliographical appendix to W. R.
Alger's Critical History of' the Doctrine of a
Future Life, Nos. 2929-3132, and on the Resur-
rection of Christ, Nos. 3133-3181. A.

RE'U {^'^1 [fiiend] : 'Payav in Gen. ; [Rom.]
'Paydv [but Vat. Alex. P0701;] in Chr. : Reu, [Ra-
ff au] ). Son of Peleg, in the line of Abraham's ances-
tors (Gen. xi. 18, 19, 20, 21 ; 1 Chr. i. 25). He hved
two hundred and thirty-nine years according to the
genealogy in Genesis. Bunsen (Bibelwerk) says
Reu is Jioha, the Arabic name for Edessa, an as-
sertion which, borrowed from Knobel, is utterly
destitute of foundation, as will be seen at once on
comparing the Hebrew and Arabic words. A
closer resemblance might be found between Reu
and Rhafjm^ a large town of ISIedia, especially if
the Greek equivalents of the two names be taken.

* In 1 Chr. i. 25 the A. V. ed. 1611, follow-
ing the Bishops' Bible and the Genevan Version,
reads Rkhu, representing the Ain by H, as in
some other cases. A.

REU'BEN (p^W^ [see below]: 'Pou/8^,/
and 'PovB-qv; Joseph. ''Povfirj\o$: Pesh. Syr.
Rulnl, and so also in Arab. vers, of Joshua: Ru-
ben), Jacob's first-born child (Gen. xxix. 32), the
son of Leah, apparently not born till an unusual
interval had elapsed after the n)arriage (31 ; Joseph.
Ant. i. 19, § 8). This is perhaps denoted by the
name itself, whether we adopt the obvious signifi-
cation of its present form — reu ben, i.e. "be-
hold ye, a son ! " (Gesen. T/ies. p. 12-47 b) — or (2)
the explanation given in the text, which seems to

imply that the original form was *^^5V2l ^^S'^,
rdu beonyl, " Jehovah hath seen my affliction,'''' or
(3) that of Josephus, who uniformly presents it
as Roubel, and explains it {Ant. i. 19, § 8) as the
"pity of God" — eAeoj' toO ©eoG, as if from
bS2 '^JlSn (Fiirst, Handicb. ii. 344a).a The no-
tices of the patriarch Reuben in the book of Gen-
esis and the early Jewish traditional literature are
unusually frequent, and on the whole give a fiivor-

REUBEN

2719

a Redslob {Die AUtestamentl. Namen, 86) maintains
that Reubel is the original form of the name, which
was corrupted into Reuben, as Bethel into Bpitin, and
Jezreel into Serin. He treats it as signifying the
" flock of Bel," a deity whose worship greatly flour-
ished in the neighboring country of Moab, and who
xmder the name of Nebo had a famous sanctuary in
the very territory of Reuben. In this case it would
be a parallel to the title, " people of Chemosh," which
Is bestowed on Moab. The alteration of the obnoxious

able view of his disposition. To him, and him
alone, the preservation of Joseph's life appears to
have been due. His anguish at the disappearance
of his brother, and the frustration of his kindly
artifice for delivering him (Gen. xxxvii. 22), his
recollection of the minute details of the painful
scene many years afterwards (xlii. 22), his offer to
take the sole responsibility of the safety of the
brother who had succeeded to Joseph's place in the
family (xlii. 37), all testify to a warm and (for those
rough times) a kindly nature. Of the repulsive
crime which mars his history, and which turned
the blesshig of his dying father into a curse — his
adulterous connection with Bilhah, — we know from
the Scriptures only the fact (Gen. xxxv. 22). In
the post-biblical traditions it is treated either as
not having actually occurreil (as in the Targum
Pseudojonathan), or else as the result of a sudden
temptation acting on a hot and vigorous nature (as
in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) — a
parallel, in some of its circumstances, to the in-
trigue of David with Bathsheba. Some severe
temptation there must surely have been to impel
Reuben to an act which, regarded in its social rather
than in its moral aspect, would be peculiarly abhor-
rent to a patriarchal society, and which is specially
and repeatedly reprobated in the Law of Moses.
The Rabbinical version of the occurrence (as given
in Targ. Pseiuh>)on.) is very characteristic, and
well illustrates the difference between the spirit of
early and of late Jewish history. " Reuben went
and disordered the couch of Bilhah, his fiither's
concubine, which was placed right opposite the
couch of Leah, and it was counted unto him as if
he had lain with her. And when Israel heard it
it displeased him, and he said, ' Ix) ! an unworthy
person shall proceed from me, as Ishraael did from
Abraham and Esau from my father.' And the
Holy Spirit answered him and said, ' All are right-
eous, and there is not one unworthy among them.' "
Reuben's anxiety to save Joseph is represented as
arising from a desire to conciliate Jacob, and his
absence while Joseph was sold from his sitting
alone on the mountains in {jenitent fasting.

These traits, slight as they are, are tho.se of an
ardent, impetuous, unltalanced, but not ungenerous
nature ; not crafty and cruel, as were Simeon and
Levi, but rather, to use the metaphor of the dying
patriarch, boiling ^ up like a vessel of water over the
rapid wood-fire of the nomad tent, and as quickly
subsiding into apathy when the fuel was with-
drawn.

At the time of the migration into Egypt « Reu-
ben's sons were four (Gen. xlvi. 9; 1 Chr. v. 3).
From them sprang the chief families of the tribe
(Num. xxvi. 5-11). One of these families — that
of Pallu — became notorious as producing Eliab,
whose sons or descendants, Dathan and Abiram,
perished with their kinsman On in the divine ret-
ribution for their conspiracy against Moses (Num.

syllable in Reufte/ would, on this theory, find a paral-
lel in the Meribbaal and 'Eshbaal of Saul's family, who
became MeTphibosheth and Ishbosheth.

b Such appears to be a more accurate rendering of
the word which in the A. V. is rendered " unstable "
(Gesen. Pent. Sam. p. 33).

c According to the ancient tradition preserved by
Demetrius (in Euseb. PrcBp. Ev. ix. 21), Reuben was
45 years old at the time of the migration.

2720

REUBEN

xvi. 1, xxvi. 8-11). The census at Mount Sinai
(Num. i. 20, 21, ii. 11) shows that at the Exodus
the numbers of the tribe were 40,500 men above
twenty years of age, and fit for active warhke ser-
vice. In point of numerical strength, Reuben was
then sixth on the list, Gad, with 45,650 men, being
next below. On the borders of Canaan, after the
plague wliich punished the idolatry of Baal-Peor, the
numbers had fallen slightly, and were 43,730; Gad
was 40,500 ; and the position of the two in the list
is lower than before, I^phraim and Simeon being the
only two smaller tribes (Num. xxvi. 7, &c.).

During the journey through the wilden:ess the
position of Reuben was on the south side of the
Tabernacle. The " camp " which went under his
name was formed of his own tribe, that of Simeon «
(Leah's second son), and Gad (son of Zilpah, Leah's
slave). The standard of the camp was a deer**
with the inscription, " Hear, oh Israel ! the Lord
thy God is one Lord ! " and its place in the march
was second {Targum Pseudojon. Num. ii. 10-16).

The Reubenites, like their relatives and neigh-
bors on the journey, the Gadites, had maintained
through the march to Canaan the ancient calling
of their forefathers. The patriarchs were "feeding
their flocks " at Shechem when Joseph was sold
into Egypt. It was as men whose " trade had
been about cattle from their youth " that they
were presented to Pharaoh (Gen. xlvi. 32, 34), and
in the land of Goshen they settled "with their
flocks and herds and all that they had " (xlvi. 32,
xlvii. 1). Their cattle accompanied them in their
flight from Egypt (Ex. xii. 38), not a hoof was
left behind ; and there are frequent allusions to them
on the journey (Ex. xxxiv. 3; Num. xi. 22; Deut.
viii. 13, &c.). But it would appear that the tribes
who were destined to settle in the confined territory
between the Mediterranean and the Jordan had,
during the journey through the wilderness, for-
tunately relinquished that taste for the possession
of cattle which they could not have maintained
after their settlement at a distance from the wide
pastures of the wilderness. Thus the cattle had
come into the hands of Reuben, Gad, and the half
of Manasseh (Num. xxxii. 1), and it followed nat-
urally that when the nation arrived on the open
downs east of the Jordan, the three tribes just
named should prefer a request to their leader to be
allowed to remain in a place so perfectly suited to
their requirements. The part selected by Reuben
had at that date the special name of "the Mishor,"
with reference possibly to its evenness (Stanley,
S. 4" P- App. § 6). Under its modern name of
the Belka it is still esteemed beyond all others by
the Arab sheep-masters. It is well watered, covered
with smooth short turf, and losing itself gradually
in those illimitable wastes which have always been
and always will be the favorite resort of pastoral
nomad tribes. The country east of Jordan does
not appear to have been included in the original
land promised to Abraham. That which the spies
examined was comprised, on the east and west.

a Reuben and Simeon are named together by Jacob
in Gen. xlviii. 5 ; and there is perhaps a trace of the
connection in the interchange of the names in Jud.
viii. 1 (Vulg.) and ix. 2.

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

c A few versions have been bold enough to render

REUBEN

between the "coast of Jordan" and "the sea."
IJut for the pusillanimity of the greater number of
the tribes it would have been entered from the south
(Num. xiii. 30), and in that case the east of Jor-
dan might never have been peopled by Israel at
all.

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

The "blessing" of Reuben by the departing
Lawgiver [Deut. xxxiii. 6] is a passage which has
severely exercised translators and commentators.
Strictly translated as they stand in the received
Hebrew text, the words are as follows : « —

" Let Reuben live and not die,
And let his men be a number " (i,

few).

As to the first line there appears to be no doubt,
but the second line has been interpreted in two
exactly opposite ways. 1. By the LXX. : —

" And let his men d be many in number."
This has the disadvantage that *^Qpp is never
employed elsewhere for a large number, but always
for a small one (e. g. 1 Chr. xvi. 19; Job xvi. 22;
Is. X. 19; Ez. xii. 16).

2. That of our own Auth. Version : —

" And let not his men be few."

Here the negative of the first line is presumed to
convey its force to the second, though not there
expressed. This is countenanced by the ancient
Syriac Version (Peshito) and the translations of
Junius and Tremellius, and Schott and Winzel*.
It also has the important support of Gesenius
{2'hes. p. 968 a, and Pent. Sam. p. 44).

3. A third and very ingenious interpretation is
that adopted by the Veneto-Greek Version, and also
by Michaelis {Bibel fur Ungelehrten^ Text), which

assumes that the vowel-points of the word ViHD,

" his men," are altered to VH^, " his dead " —

" And let his dead be few " —

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

These interpretations, unless the last should
prove to be the original reading, originate in the
fact that the words in their naked sense convey a
curse and not a blessing. Fortunately, though
differing widely in detail, they agree in general

Thus the Vulgate, Luther,

the Hebrew as it stands.
De Wette, and Bunsen.

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

REUBEN

meaning." The benediction of the great leader
goes out over the tribe which was about to separate
itself from its brethren, in a fervent aspiration for
its welfare through all tlie risks of that remote and
trying situation.

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

From this time it seems as if a bar, not only the
material one of distance, and of the intervening
river and mountain-wall, but also of difference in
feeling and habits, gradually grew up more sub-
stantially between the eastern and western tribes.
The first act of the former after the completion of
the conquest, and after they had taken part in
the solemn ceremonial in the valley between Ebal
and Gerizim, shows how wide a gap already ex-
isted between their ideas and those of the western
tribes.

The pile of stones which they erected on the
western bank of the Jordan to mark their boun-
dary — to testify to after ages that though sep-
arated by the rushing river from their brethren and
the country in which Jehovah had fixed the place
where He would be worshipped, they had still a
right to return to it for his worship — was erected
in accordance with the unalterable habits of Be-
douin tribes both before and since. It was an act
identical with that in which Laban and Jacob
engaged at parting, with that which is constantly
performed by the Bedouins of the present day.
But by the Israelites west of Jordan, who were fast
relinquishing their nomad habits and feelings for
those of more settled permanent life, this act was
completely misunderstood, and was construed into
an attempt to set up a rival altar to that of the
Sacred Tent. The incompatibility of the idea to
the mind of the Western Israelites is showii by the
fact, that notwithstanding the disclaimer of the
2J tribes, and notwithstanding that disclaimer hav-
ing proved satisfactory even to Phinelias, the author
of Joshua xxii. retains the name mizheach for the
pile, a word which involves the idea of sacrifice —
i. e. oi slaughter (see Gesenius, Thes. p. 402) — in-
stead of applying to it the terra gal, as is done in the
case (Gen. xxxi. 46) of the precisely similar "heap
of witness." ^ Another Reubenite erection, which
for long kept up the memory of the presence of the
tribe on the west of Jordan, was the stone of Bohan
ben-Reuben which formed a landmark on the boun-
dary between Judah and Benjamin. (Josh. xv.
6.) This was a single stone (Eben), not a pile,
and it appears to have stood somewhere on the road
from Bethany to Jericho, not far from the ruined
khan so well known to travellers-
No judge, no prophet, no hero of the tribe of
Reuben is handed down to us. In the dire ex-

REUEL

2721

a Tn the Revised Translation of the Holy Scriptures
by the Rev. C. Wellbeloved and others (London, 1857)
the passage is rendered —

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

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

b The "altar" is actually called Ed, or "witness "

tremity of their brethren in the north under
Deborah and Barak, they contented themselves
with debating the news amongst the streams « of
the Mishor; the distant distress of his brethren
could not move Reuben, he lingered among his
sheepfolds and preferred the shepherd's pipe ''and
the bleating of the flocks, to the clamor of the
trumpet and the turmoil of battle. His individ-
uality fades more rapidly than Gad's. The eleven
valiant Gadites who swam the Jordan at its highest
to join the son of Jesse in his trouble (1 Chr. xii.
8-15), Barzillai, Elijah the Gileadite, the siege of
Ramoth-Gilead with its picturesque incidents, all
give a substantial reality to the tribe and country
of Gad. But no person, no incident, is recorded,
to place Reuben before us in any distincter form
than as a member of the community (if com-
munity it can be called) of "the Reubenites, the Ga-
dites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh " (1 Chr. xii.
37). The very towns of his inheritance — Hesh-
bon, Aroer, Kirjathaim, Dibon, Baal-meon, Sibmah,
Jazer, — are familiar to us as Moabite, and not as
Israelite towns. The city-life so characteristic of
Moabite civilization had no hold on the Reubenites.
They are most in their element when engaged in
contiiuial broils with the children of the desert,
the Bedouin tribes of Hagar, Jetur, Nephish,
Nodal) ; driving off their myriads of cattle, asses,
camels; dwelling in their tents, as if to the manor
born (1 Chr. v. 10), gradually spreading over the
vast wilderness which extends from Jordan to the
Euphrates (ver. 9), and every day receding further
and further from any conununity of feeling or of
interest with the western tribes.

Thus remote from the central seat of the na-
tional government and of the national religion, it
is not to be wondered at that Reuben relinquished
the faith of Jehovah. "They went a whoring
after the gods of the people of the land whom God
destroyed before them," and the last historical
notice which we possess of them, while it records
this fact, records also as its natural consequence
that the Reubenites and Gadites, and the half-tribe
of Manasseh, were caiTied off by Pul and Tiglath-
Pileser, and placed in the districts on and about
the river Khabur in the upper part of Mesopo-
tamia — " in Halah, and Habor, and Ilara, and
the river Gozan " (1 Chr. v. 26). G.

* REU'BENITES O^nnS"]: commonly
'Povfirjv, but Josh. xxii. 1, ol viol 'Pov^^u, Alex.
01 Povfir]viTai; 1 Chr. xxvi. 32, 'Pou$rivi [Vat.
-j/ei] : Ruben, Eubenitce), and once sing., REU'-
BENITE (1 Chr. xi. 42; LXX. omit; Vulg.
Eubenites). Descendants of Reuben (Num. xxvi.
7; Deut. iii. 12, 16, iv. 43, xxix. 8; Josh. i. 12,
xii. 6, xiii. 8, xxii. 1; 2 K. x. 33; 1 Chr. v. 6, 26,
xi. 42, xii. 37, xxvi. 32, xxvii. 16). A.

REU'EL (bS^l^l [JHend of God] : 'Pa-
yovT]\' Rahuel, Raguel). The name of several
persons mentioned in the Bible.

1. One of the sons of Esau, by his wife Bashe-

(Josh. xxii. 34) by the Bedouin Reubenites, just as the
pile of Jacob and Laban was called 6al-ed, the heap
of witness.

c The word used here, peleg, seems to refer to arti-
ficial streams or ditches for irrigation. [River.]

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

2722

REUMAH

math sister of Ishmael. His sons were four —
Nahath, Zerah, Shamiuah, and Mizzah, "dukes"
of Edom (Gen. xxxvi. 4, 10, 13. 17 ; 1 Chr. i. 35,
37).

2. One of the names of Moses' father-in-law
(Ex. ii. 18); the same which, through adherence
to the LXX. form, is given in another passage of
the A. V. Raguel. Moses' father-in-law was a
]\Iidianite, but the Midianites are in a well-known
passage (Gen. xxxvii. 28) called also Ishmaelites,
and if this may be taken strictly, it is not im-
possible that the name of Keuel may be a token
of his connection with the Ishmaelite tribe of that
name. There is, however, nothing to confirm this
suggestion.

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

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

REU'MAH (np^S*^ [raised, high] : 'Feifia;
Alex. Perjpo: Roma). The concubine of Nahor,
Abraham's brother (Gen. xxii. 24).

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN CAtto/cc^-
Xvy\iis ^Iwdpvov' Apocalypsis Beati Joannis Apos-
toli). The following subjects in connection with
this book seem to have the chief claim for a place
in this article : —

A. Canonical Authority and Author-
ship.

B. Time and Place of Writing.

C. Language.

D. Contents and Structure.

E. History of Interpretation.

A. Canonical Authority and Author-
ship. — The question as to the canonical authority
of the Revelation resolves itself into a question of
authorship. If it can be proved that a book, claim-
ing so distinctly as this does the authority of divine
inspiration, was actually written by St. John, then
no doubt will be entertained as to its title to a
place in the Canon of Scripture.

Was, then, St. John the Apostle and Evangelist
the writer of the Revelation ? This question was
first mooted by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius,
//. E. vii. 25). The doubt which he modestly
suggested has been confidently proclaimed in mod-
ern times by Luther ( Vorrede auf die Offenbnrung,
1522 and 1534), and widely diffused through his
influence. Liicke {Einleitung, p. 802), the most
learned and dihgent of modern critics of the Reve-
lation, agrees with a majority of the eminent
scholai-s of Germany in denying that St. John was
the author.

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

(1.) The author's description of himself in the
1st and 22d chapters is certainly equivalent to an
assertion that he is the Apostle, (a.) He names
himself simply John, without prefix or addition —
a name which at that period, and in Asia, must
have been taken by every Christian as the designa-
tion in the first instance of the great Apostle who

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

dwelt at Ephesus. Doubtless there were other
Johns among the Christians at that time, but only
arrogance or an intention to deceive could account
for the assumption of this simple style by any other
writer. He is also described as (<!*) a servant of
Christ, (c) one who had borne testimony as an
eye-witness of the word of God and of the testi-
mony of Christ — terms which were surely designed
to identify him with the writer of the verses John
xix. 35, i. 14, and 1 John i. 2. He is (c?) in Pat-
mos for the word of God and the testimony of
Jesus Christ: it may be easy to suppose that other
Christians of the same name were banished thither,
but the Apostle is the only John who is distinctly
named in early history as an exile at Patmos. He
is also (e) a fellow-sufferer with those whom he
addresses, and (/) the authorized channel of the
most direct and important communication that
was ever made to the seven churches of Asia, of
which churches John the Apostle was at that time
the spiritual governor and teacher. . Lastly {g) the
writer was a fellow-servant of angels and a brother
of prophets — titles which are far more suitable to
one of the chief Apostles, and far more likely to
have been assigned to him than to any other man
of less distinction. All these marks are found
united together in the Apostle John, and in him
alone of all historical persons. We must go out
of the region of fact into the region of conjecture
to find such another person. A candid reader of
the Revelation, if previously acquainted with St.
John's other writings and life, must inevitably con-
clude that the writer intended to be identified with
St. John, It is strange to see so able a critic as
Liicke (Einleitung, p. 514) meeting this conclusion
with the conjecture that some Asiatic disciple and
namesake of the Apostle may have written the
book in the course of some missionary labors or
some time of sacred retirement in Patmos. Equally
unavailing against this conclusion is the objection
brought by Ewald, Credner, and others, from the
fact that a promise of the future blessedness of the
Apostles is implied in xviii. 20 and xxi. 14; as if
it were inconsistent with the true modesty .and
humility of an Apostle to record — as Daniel of
old did in much plainer terms (Dan. xii. 13) — a
divine promise of salvation to himself personally.
Rather those passages may be taken as instances of
the writer quietly accepting as his just due such
honorable mention as belongs to all the Apostolic
company. Unless we are prepared to give up the
veracity and divine origin of the whole book, and
to treat the writer's account of himself as a mere
fiction of a poet trying to cover his own insignifi-
cance with an honored name, we must accept that
description as a plain statement of fact, equally
credible with the rest of the book, and in har-
mony with the simple, honest, truthful character
which is stamped on the face of the whole narra-
tive.

Besides this direct assertion of St. John's author-
ship, there is also an implication of it running
through the book. Generally, the instinct of single-
minded, patient, faithful students has led them to
discern a connection between the Revelation and
St. John, and to recognize not mei'ely the same
Spirit as the source of this and other books of Holy
Scripture, but also the same peculiarly -formed
human instrument employed both in producing
this book and the fourth Gospel, and in speaking
the characteristic words and performing the char-
acteristic actions recorded of St. John. This evi-

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

2T23

dence is set forth at great length, and with much
force and eloquence, by J. P. Lange, in his Essay
on the Connection between the Individuality of the
Apostle John and that of the Apocalypse, J8;J8
{Vennisc/Ue Schriflen, ii. 173-231). After in-
vestigating the peculiar features of the Afwstle's
character and position, and (in reply to Liicke) the
personal traits shown by the writer of the Revela-
tion, he concludes that the book is a mysterious
but genuine ettusion of prophecy under the New
Testament, imbued with the spirit of the Gospel,

tthe product of a spiritual gift so peculiar, so great
and noble that it can be ascribed to the Apostle
John alone. The lievelation requires for its writer
St. John, just as his peculiar genius requires for
its utterance a revelation.

(2.) To come to the historical testimonies in
favor of St. John's authorship : these are singularly
distinct and numerous, and there is very little to
weigh against them. («.) Justin Martyr, cir. 150
A. D., says: "A man among us whose name was
John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a revelation
which was made to him, prophesied that the be-
lievers in our Christ shall live a thousand years in
Jerusalem" {Tryph. § 81, p. 179, ed. Ben.), (b.)
The author of the ^luratorian Fragment, cir. 170
A. D., speaks of St. John as the writer of the
Apocalypse, and describes him as a predecessor of
St. Paul, i. e. as Credner and LUcke candidly in-
terpret it, his predecessor in the otfice of Apostle,
(c.) MeUto of Sardes, cir. 170 A. D., wrote a treatise
on the Revelation of John. Eusebius {H. E. iv.
26 ) mentions this among the books of Melito which
had come to his knowledge; and, as he carefully
records objections against the A^wstle's authorship,
it may be fairly presumed, notwithstanding the
doubts of Kleuker and Liicke (p. 514), that Euse-
bius found no doubt as to St. John's authorship in
the book of this ancient Asiatic bishop, {d.) The-
ophilus, bishop of Antioch, cir. 180, in a controversy
with Hermogenes, quotes passages out of the Rev-
elation of John (Euseb. //. /i'. i v. 24). (e.) Irenajus,
cir. 195, apparently never having heard a suggestion
of any other author than the Apostle, often quotes
the Revelation as the work of John. In iv. 20, §
11, he describes John the writer of ttfe Revelation
as the same who was leaning on Jesus' bosom at
supper, and asked Him who should betray Him.
The testimony of Irenoeus as to the authorship of
Revelation is perhaps more important than that
of any other writer : it mounts up into the preced-
ing generation, and is virtually that of a contem-
porary of the Apostle. For in v. 30, § 1, where he
vindicates the true reading (666) of the number
of the Beast, he cites in supjjort of it not only the
old correct copies of the book, but also the oral
testimony of the very persons who themselves had
seen St. John face to face. It is obvious that
Irenajus's reference for information on such a point
to those contemporaries of St. John implies his
undoubting belief that they, in common with him-
self, viewed St. John as the writer of the book.
Liicke (p. 574) suggests that this view was possibly
gi-oundless, because it was entertained before the
learned fothers of Alexandria had set the example
of historical criticism; but his suggestion scarcely
weakens the force of the fact that such was the
belief of Asia, and it appears a strange suggestion
when we remember that the critical discernment
of the Alexandrians, to whom he refers, led them
to coincide with Irenoeus in his view. (/'.) Apol-
lonius (cir. 200) of Ephesus ( ?), in controversy with

the Montanists of Phrygia, quoted passages out of
the Revelation of John, and narrated a miracle
wrought by John at Ephesus (Euseb. H. E. v. 18).
(</.) Clement of Alexandria (cir. 200) quotes the
book as the Revelation of John {Stroinata, vi. 13,
p. 667), and as the work of an Apostle (Peed. ii.
12, p. 207). (k.) TertuUian (A. d. 207), in at
least one phice, quotes by name " the Apostle John
in the Apocalyj^se" (Adv. Mardoii. iii. 14). {%.)
Hippolytus (cir. 230) is said, in the inscription on
his statue at Rome, to have composed an apology
for the Apocalypse and Gospel of St. John the
Apostle. He quotes it as the work of St. John
{De Antichristo, § 36, col. 756, ed. Migne). {j.)
Origen (cir. 233), in his Commentary on St. John,
quoted by Eusebius {H. E. vi. 25), says of the
Apostle, " he wrote also the Revelation." The tes-
timonies of later writers, in the third and fourth
centuries, in favor of St. John's authorship of the
Revelation, are equally distinct and far more numer-
ous. They may be seen quoted at length in Liicke,
pp. 628-638, or in Dean Alford's Prolegomena
{N. T., vol. iv. pt. ii.). It may suffice here to say
that they include the names of Victorinus, Meth-
odius, Ephrem Syi-us, Epiphanius, Basil, Hilary,
Athanasius, Gregory [of Nyssa], Didymus, Am-
brose, Augustine, and Jerome.

All the foregoing writers, testifying that the book
came from an Aiwstle, believed that it was a part
of Holy Scripture. But many whose extant works
cannot be quoted for testimony to the authorship
of the book refer to it as possessing canonical au-
thority. Thus (a.) Papiiis, who is described by
Irenaeus as a hearer of St. John and friend of Poly-
carp, is cited, together with other writers, by An-
dreas of Cappadocia, in his Commentary on the
Revelation, as a guarantee to later ages of the
divine inspiration of the book (Routh, Jieliq. Sacr.
i. 15; Cramer's Catena, Oxford, 1840, p. 176). The
value of this testimony has not been impaired by
the controversy to which it has given rise, in which
Liicke, Bleek, Hengstenberg, and Rettig have taken
different parts. (A.) In the Epistle from the
Churches of Lyons and Vienne, a. d. 177, inserted
in Eusebius, II. E. v. 1-3, several passages (e. (/. i.
5, xiv. 4, xxii. 11) are quoted or referred to in the
same way as passages of books whose canonical
authority is unquestioned, (c.) Cyprian (Epj). 10,
12, 14, 19, ed. Fell) repeatedly quotes it as a part
of canonical Scripture. Chrysostom makes no dis-
tinct allusion to it in any extant writing ; but we
are informed by Suidas that he received it as canon-
ical. Although omitted (perhaps as not adapted
for public reading in church) from the Ust of
canonical books in the Council of Laodicea, it was
admitted into the list of the Third Council of
Carthage, A. d. 397.

Such is the evidence in favor of St. John's
authorship and of the canonical authority of this
book. The following facts must be weighed on the
other side.

Marcion, who regarded all the Apostles except
St. Paul as corrupters of the truth, rejected the
Apocalypse and all other books of the N. T. which
were not written by St. Paul. The Alogi, an
obscure sect, circa 180 A. D., in their zeal against
Montanisra, denied the existence of spiritual gifts
in the church, and rejected the Revelation, saying
it was the work, not of John, but of Cerinthus
(Epiphanius, Adv. Hcev. Ii.). The Roman presby-
ter Cains (circa 196 A. d.), who also wrote against
Montanism, is quoted by Eusebius {H. E. iii. 28)

2724

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

as ascribing certain Revelations to Cerinthus : but it
is doubted (see Kouth, lid. Sacr. ii. 138) wbether
the Keveiation of St. John is tlie book to which
Caius refei-s. But the testimony wliich is consid-
ered the most important of all in ancient times
against the Keveiation is contained in a fragment
of Dionysius of Alexandria, circa 240 A. D., the
most influential and perhaps the ablest bishop in
that age. The passage, taken from a book On the
Frumises, written in reply to Nepos, a learned
Judaizing Chiliast, is quoted by Eusebius (//. L\
vii. 25). The principal points in it are these:
Dionysius testifies that some writers before him
altogether repudiated the Revelation as a forgery
of Cerinthus; many brethren, however, prized it
very highly, and Dionysius would not venture to
reject it, but received it in faith as containing
things too deep and too sublime for his understand-
ing. [In his Epistle to Hermammon (Euseb. H, E.
vii. 10) he quotes it as he would quote Holy Scrip-
ture.] He accepts as true what is stated in the
book itself, that it was written by John, but he
argues that the way in which that name is men-
tioned, and the general character of the language,
are unlike what we should expect from John the
Evangelist and Apostle; that there were many
Johns in that age. He would not say that John
Mark was the writer, since it is not known that he
was in Asia. He supposes it must be the work of
some John who lived in Asia; and he observes
there are said to be two tombs in Ephesus, each of
which bears the name of John. He then points
out at length the superiority of the style of the
Gospel and the First Epistle of John to the style
of the Apocalypse, and says, hi conclusion, that,
whatever he may think of the language, he does
not deny that the writer of the Apocalypse actually
saw what he describes, and was endowed with the
divine gifts of knowledge and prophecy. To this
extent, and no farther, Dionysius is a witness
against St. John's authorship. It is obvious that
he felt keenly the difficulty arising from the use
made of the contents of this book by certain un-
sound Christians under his jurisdiction; that he
was acquainted with the doubt as to its canonical
authority which some of his predecessors entertained
as an inference from the nature of its contents;
that he deliberately rejected their doubt and ac-
cepted the contents of the book as given by the
inspiration of God ; that, although he did not un-
derstand how St. John could write in the style in
which the Revelation is written, he yet knew of no
authority for attributing it, as he desired to at-
tribute it, to some other of the numerous persons
who bore the name of John. A weightier difficulty
arises from the fact that the Revelation is one of
the books which are absent from the ancient Peshito
version ; and the only trustworthy evidence in favor
of its reception by the ancient Syrian Church is a
single quotation which is adduced from the Syriac
works (ii. 332 c) of Ephrem Syrus. Eusebius is
remarkably sparing in his quotations from the
*' Revelation of John," and the uncertainty of his
opinion about it is best shown by his statement in
H. E. iii. 39, that " it is likely that the Revelation
was seen by the second John (the Ephesian pres-
byter), if any one is unwilling to believe that it
was seen by the Apostle." Jerome states {Ep. ad
Dardimum, etc.) that the Greek churches felt, with

* This cannot properly be said of Cyril of Jeru- canonical ( Cate.ch. iv. 33, al. 22).
(fl. A. D. 350), who clearly repudiates it as not , of the N. T. pp. 398, 491 f.

respect to the Revelation, a similar doubt to that
of the Latins respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Neither he nor his equally influential contemporary
Augustine shared such doubts. Cyril of Jerusalem,
Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret
abstained from making use of the book, sharing, it
is possible, the doubts to which Jerome refers. But
they have not gone so far as to express a distinct
opinion against it.« The silence of these writers is
the latest evidence of any importance that has been
adduced against the overwhelming weight of the
testimony in favor of the canonical authority and
authorship of this book.

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

Unsupported by any historical evidence, some
commentators have put forth the conjecture that
the Revelation was written as early as the time of
Nero. This is simply their inference from the style
and contents of the book. But it is difficult to see
why St. John's old age rendered it, as they allege,
impossible for him to write his inspired message
with force and vigor, or why his residence in
Ephesus must have removed the Hebraistic pecu-
liarities of his Greek. It is difficult to see in the
passages i. 7, ii. 9, iii. 9, vi. 12, 16, xi. 1, anything
which would lead necessarily to the conclusion, ihat
Jerusalem was in a prosperous condition, and that
the predictions of its fall had not been fulfilled
when those verses were written. A more weighty
argument in favor of an early date might be urged
from a modern interpretation of xvii. 10, if that
interpretation could be established. Galba is al-
leged to be the sixth king, the one that "is." In
Nero these interpreters see the Beast that was
wounded (xiii. 3), the Beast that was and is not,
the eighth king (xvii. 11). For some time after
Nero's death the Roman populace believed that he
was not dead, but had fled into the East, whence
he would return and regain his throne: and these
interpreters venture to suggest that the writer of
the Revelation shared and meant to express the
absurd popular delusion. Even the able and learned
Reuss {Theol. Cliret. i. 443), by way of supporting
this interpretation, advances his untenable claim
to the first discovery of the name of Nero Caesar
in the number of the beast, 666. The inconsistency
of this interpretation with prophetic analogy, with
the context of Revelation, and with the fact that
the book is of divine origin, is pointed out by ^h
Hengstenberg at the end of his Commentary on fli
ch. xiii.j and by Elliott, Horce Apoc. iv. 547. H

SeeWestcott, Canon

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

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

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

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

D. Contents. — The first three verses contain
the title of the book, the description of the writer,
and the blessing pronounced on the readers, which
possibly, like the last two verses of the fourth Gos-
pel, may be an addition by the hand of inspired
survivors of the \vriter. John begins (i. 4) with a
salutation of the Seven Churches of Asia. This,
coming before the announcement that he was in
the Spirit, looks like a dedication not merely of
the first vision, but of all the book, to those
churches. In the next five verses (i. 5-9) he
touches the key-note of the whole following book,
the great fundamental ideas on which all our notions
of the government of the world and the Church
are built; the Person of Christ, the redemption
wrought by Him, his second coming to judge man-
kind, the painful hopeful discipline of Christians
in the midst of this present world : thoughts which
may well be supposed to have been uppermost in
the mind of the persecuted and exiled Apostle even
before the Divine Inspiration came on him.

a. The first vision (i. 7-iii. 22) shows the Son
of Man with his injunction, or Epistles to the
Seven Churches. While the Apostle is pondering
those great truths and the critical condition of his

2725

Church which he had left, a Divine Person resem-
bling those seen by Ezekiel and Daniel, and iden-
tified by name and by description as Jesus, appears
to John, and with the discriminating authority of a
Lord and Judge reviews the state of those churches,
pronounces his decision upon their several charac-
ters, and takes occasion from them to speak to all
Christians who may deserve similar encourage-
ment or similar condemnation. Each of these
sentences, spoken by the Son of Man, is described
as said by the Spirit. Hitherto the Apostle has
been speaking primarily, though not exclusively,
to some of his own contemporaries concerning
the present events and circumstances. Hence-
forth he ceases to address them particularly. His
words are for the ear of the universal Church in
all ages, and show the significance of things which
are present in hope or fear, in sorrow or ui joy, to
Christians everywhere.

b. (iv. 1-viii. 1). In the next vision, Patmos
and the Divine Person whom he saw are gone.
Only the trumpet voice is heard again calling him
to a change of place. He is in the highest court
of heaven, and sees God sitting on his throne.
The seven-sealed book or roll is produced, and the
slain Lamb, the Redeemer, receives it amid the
sound of universal adoration. As the seals are
opened in order, the Apostle sees (1) a conqueror
on a white horse, (2) a red horse betokening war,
(.3) the black horse of famine, (4) the pale horse
of death, (5) the eager souls of martyrs under the
altar, (6) an earthquake with universal commotion
and terror. After this there is a pause, the course
of avenging angels is checked while 144,000, the
children of Israel, sen-ants of God, are sealed, and
an innumerable multitude of the redeemed of all
nations are seen worshipping God. Next (7) the
seventh seal is opened, and half an. hour's silence
in heaven ensues.

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

The three preceding visions are distinct from one
another. Each of the last two, like the longer
one which follows, has the appearance of a distinct
prophecy, reaching from the prophet's time to the
end of the world. The second half of the Revela-
tion (xii.-xxii.) comprises a series of visions which
are connected by various links. It may be de-
scribed generally as a prophecy of the assaults of
the devil and his agents (=the dragon, the ten-
horned beast, the two-horned beast or false prophet,

2726

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

and the harlot) upon the Church, and their final
destruction. It appears to begin with a reference
to events anterior, not only to tliose which are pre-
dicted in the preceding chapter, but also to the
time in which it was written. It seems hard to
interpret the birth of tlie child as a prediction, and
not as a retrospective allusion.

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

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

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

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

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

Afterwards (xix.) the worshippers in heaven are
heard celebrating Babylon's fall and the approach-
ing marriage-supper of the Lamb. The Word of
God is seen going forth to war at the head of the
heavenly armies: the beast and his false prophet
are taken and cast into the burning lake, and
their worshippers are slain.

An angel (xx.-xxii. 5) binds the dragon, i. e. the
devil, for 1000 years, whilst the martyred saints
who had not worshipped the beast reign with Christ.
Then the devil is unloosed, gathers a host against
the camp of the saints, but is overcome by fire
from heaven, and is cast into the burning lake with
the beast and false prophet. St. John then wit-
nesses the process of the final judgment, and sees
and describes the new heaven and the new earth,
and the new Jerusalem, with its people and their
way of life.

In the last sixteen verses (xxii. 0-21) the angel
solenuily asseverates tlie truthfulness and inqwr-
tance of the foregoing sayings, pronounces a bless-

ing on those who keep them exactly, gives wi
ing of his speedy coming to judgment, and of the
nearness of the time when these prophecies shall
be fulfilled.

E. Interpeetation. — A short account of the
different directions in which attempts have been
made to interpret the Kevelation, is all that can be
given in tliis place. The special blessing promised
to the reader of this book (i. 3), the assistance to
common Christian experience afforded by its pre-
cepts and by some of its visions, the striking im-
agery of others, the tenqiting field which it supplies
for intellectual exercise, will always attract students
to this book and secure for it the labors of many
commentators. Ebrard reckons that not less than
eighty systematic commentaries are worthy of note,
and states that the less valuable writings on this
inexhaustible subject are unnumbered, if not innu-
merable. Fanaticism, theological hatred, and vain
curiosity, may have largely influenced their com-
position ; but any one who will compare the neces-
sarily inadequate, and sometimes erroneous, exposi-
tion of early times with a good modern commen-
tary will see that the pious ingenuity of so many
centuries has not been exerted quite in vain.

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

The^ only extant systematic interpretations in
this period are the interpolated Commentary on
the Revelation by the martyr Victorinus, circ. 270
A. D. {Bibliotheci Patrum Maxima^ iii. 414, and
Migne's Patrologia Latina, v. 318; the two edi-
tions should be compared), and the disputed Trea-
tise on Antichrist by Hippolytus (Migne's Patro-
logia Groeca, x. 726). But the prevalent views of
that age are to be gathered also from a passage in
Justin Martyr {Trypho, 80, 81), from the later
books, especially the fifth, of Irenaeus, and from
various scattered passages in TertuUian, Origen,
and Methodius. The general anticipation of the
last days of the world in Lactantius, vii. 14-25,
has little direct reference to the Revelation.

Immediately after the triumph of Constantine,
the Christians, emancipated from oppression and
persecution, and dominant and prosperous in their
turn, began to lose their vivid expectation of our
Lord's speedy Advent, and their spiritual concep-
tion of his kingdom, and to look upon the tem-
poral supremacy of Christianity as a fulfillment of
the promised reign of Christ on earth. The Ro-
man empire become Christian was regarded no
longer as the object of prophetic denunciation, but
as the scene of a millennial development. This view,
however, was soon met by the figurative interpre-
tation of the millennium as the reign of Christ in

waxn- ^

REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

2727

the hearts of all true believers. As the barbarous
and heretical invaders of the fallini^ empire ap-
peared, they were regarded by the sufferijig Chris-
tians as fulfilling the woes denounced in the Reve-
lation. The beginning of a regular chronological
interpretation is seen in Berengaud (assigned by
some critics to the 9th century), who treated the
Revelation as a history of the Church from the
beginning of the world to its end. And the origi-
nal Commentary of the Abbot Joachim is remark-
able, not only for a further development of that
method of interpretation, but for the scarcely dis-
guised identification of Babylon with Papal Rome,
and of the second Beast or Antichrist with some
Universal Pontiff.

The chief conmientaries belonging to this period
are that which is ascribed to Tichonius, circ. 390
A. D., printed in the works of St. Augustine; Pri-
masius, of Adrumetum in Africa, A, D. 550, in
Migne's Patvologia Lat'ma, Ixviii. 1400 ; Andreas
of Crete, circ. G50 A. D., Arethas of Cappadocia
and (Ecumenius of Thessaly in the 10th century,
whose commentaries were published together in
Cramer's Odena^ Oxon., 1840; the Explinalio
Apoc. in the works of lie<ie, A. d. 735 ; the Exix)-
sitio of Berengaud, printed in the works of Am-
brose; the Commentary of Haymo, A. D. 853, first
published at Cologne in 1531; a short Treatise on
the Seals by Anselm, bishop of Havilberg, A. D.
1145, printed in D'Achdry's Spicilef/ium, i. 161;
the Exjjod'io of Abbot .Joachim of Cidabria, A. D.
1200, printed at Venice in 1527.

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

a. The Historical or Continuous expositors, in
whose opinion the Revelation is a progressive his-
tory of the fortunes of the Church from the first
century to the end of time. The chief ^supi)orters
of this most interesting interpretation are Mede,
Sir I. Newton, Vitruiga, Bengel, Woodhouse, Fa-
ber, E. B. Elliott, Wordsworth, Hengstenberg,
Ebrard, and others. The recent commentary of
Dean Alford belongs mainly to this school.

b. The Pra^terist expositors, who are of opinion
that the Revelation has been almost, or altogether,
fulfilled in the time which has passed since it was
written ; that it refers principally to the triumph
of Christianity over Judaism and Paganism, sig-
nalized in the downfall of Jerusalem and of Rome.
The most eminent expounders of this view are
Alcasar, Grotius, Hammond, Bossuet, Calmet, Wet-
stein, Eichhorn, Hug, Herder, Ewald, Liicke, De
Wette, Diisterdieck, Stuart, Lee, and Maurice.
This is the favorite interpretation with the critics
of (iermany, one of whom goes so far as to state
that the writer of the Revelation promised the
fulfillment of his visions within the space of
three years and a half from the time in which he
wrote.

c. The Futurist expositors, whose views show a
strong reaction against some extravagancies of the
two preceding schools. They believe that the whole
book, excepting perhaps the first three chapters,
refers pruicipally, if not exclusively, to events which

are yet to come. This view, which is asserted to
be merely a revival of the primitive interpretation,
has been advocated in recent times by Dr. J. H.
Todd, Dr. S. R. Maitland, B. Newton, C. Maitland,
I. Williams, De Burgh, and others.

Each of these three schemes is open to objec-
tion. Against the Futurist it is argued, that it is
not consistent with the repeated declarations of a
speedy fulfillment at the beginning and end of the
book itself (see ch. i. 3, xxii. 6, 7, 12, 20). Chris-
tians, to whom it was originally addressed, would
have derived no special comfort from it, had its
fulfillment been altogether deferred for so many
centuries. The rigidly literal interpretation of
Babylon, the Jewish tribes, and other symbols
which generally forms a part of Futurist schemes,
presents peculiar difficulties.

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

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

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

* Literature. The most valuable Introduction
to the Apocalypse is LUcke's Versuch einer vollstdn-
digen Einl. in die Off'enb. d. Johannes (1832),
2d ed., greatly enlarged, 2 Abth., Bonn, 1852.
Besides the Commentaries (a few of which will be

2728 REVELATION OF ST. JOHN

mentioned below), and the general Introductions to
the N. T., as those of Hug, Schott, De Wette,
Credner, Guericke, Keuss (see also his art. Johan.
Ajyok. in Ersch and Gruber's AlUjem. Encykhj).
Sect. II. Bd. xxii. (1842) p. 79 ff.), Bleek, and Da-
vidson, the following are some of the more notice-
able essays on the authorship, date, and plan of the
book: A Discourse, Uistoncal and Critical, on the
Revelations ascribed to St. John (by F. Abauzit),
Lond. 1730 ; also, in a different trans., in his Mis-
cellanies (Lond. 1774). This was reviewed by L.
Twells, in his Crit. Examination of the Late New
Test, and Version of the N. T., in Greek and
English [Mace's], Lond. 1732, trans, in part by
Wolf in his Curce Philol. et Grit. v. 387 ff. (Basil.
1741). (G. L. Oeder,) Freie Unters. ilb. die sof/en.
Offenb. Joh., mit Anm. von Semler, Halle, 1769.
Semler, Neue Unters. iib. d. Apok., Halle, 1776.
(F. G. Hartwig,) Apol. d. Apok. wider falschen
Tadel u. falsches Lob, 4 Thle., Chemn. 1780-83.
G. C. Storr, Neue Apol. d. Offenb. Joh., Tub. 1782.
Donker-Curtius, De Apoc. ab Indole, Doct. et
scribtndi Genere Joannis Aposi. non abhoi^rente,
Ultraj. 1799. Bleek, Beitrdge zur Kiit. u. Deu-
tung d. Offenb. Joh., in the Theol. Zeitschr. of
Schleiermacher, De Wette and Liicke, Heft 2 (Berl.
1820); conip. his Beitruge zur Evangelien-Kritik
(1846), p. 182 flF., 267 ff., and his review of Lucke in
the Theol. Stud. u. KriL, 1854, Heft 4, and 1855,
Heft 1. Kolthoff, Apoc. Joanni Apost. vindicata,
Hafn. 1834. Dannemann, Wer ist der Veifasser
d. Offenb. Johannis f Hannov. 1841. Hitzig,
Ueber Johannes Marcus u. seine Schriften, oder
welcher Johannes hat die Offenb. verfasst f Ziir.
1843. Neander, Planting and Training of the
Chiistian Church, p. 365 ff., Robinson's trans.,
N. Y. 1865. W. F. Rinck, Apokalypt. Fm^-
schungen, Ziir. 1853. E. Boehmer, Verfasser u.
Abfassungszeit d. Joh. Apoc, Halle, 1856. G. R.
Noyes, The Apocalypse analyzed and explained,
in the Christ. Examiner for May 1860, reprinted
in the Journal of Sac. Lit. for Oct. 1860. The
Apocalypse, in the Westm. Rev. for Oct. 1861.
(S. Davidson,) The Apocalypse of St. John, in the
National Rev. for April 1864; substantially the
same as his art. Revelation in the 3d ed. of Kitto's
Cyclop, of Bibl. Lit. R. D. C. Robbins, The
Author of the Apocalypse, in the Bibl. Sacra for
April and July, 1864. Alb. R^ville, La lit. apoc-
alyptique chez lesjuifs et les Chretiens, in the Rev.
des Deux Mondes for Oct. 1, 1866. B. Weiss,
Apokalyptische Studien, in Theol. Stud. u. Krit.
1869, pp. 1-59, cf. p. 758 ff.

Of the multitudinous Commentaries on this tor-
tured book only a few of the more remarkable can
be named here. The history of the interpretation
is given in detail by Liicke (p. 951 ff.) and after
him by Stuart (i. 450 ff. ) ; comp. the outline in
De Wette {Exeg. Handb.). Jos. Mede, Clavis
Apocalyptica and Comm. in Ajjoc. (1627, 1632), in
his Works, vol. ii. Grotius, Annot. in N. T., Par.
1644, often reprinted. Bossuet, DApoc. avec une
explication. Par. 1690. y'livingdi,, A.vaKpia is -Apoc.
(1705), ed. alt., Amst. 1719, 4to. Daubuz, Per-
petual Comm. on the Rev. of St. John, Lond. 1720,
fol. Sir Is. Newton, Obs. upon the Proph. of
Daniel and the Apoc. of St. John, I/)nd. 1733, 4to.
Lowman, Paraphrase and Notes on tlie Rev., Ix)nd.
1737, 4to, often reprinted. Bengel, Erkldrte Of-

KEZEPH

fenb. Johannis, Stuttg. 1740, 3e Aufl. 1758
comp. his Gnomon. Herder, MAPAN A0A. J^as
Buch von d. Zukunft des Derm, Riga, 1779.
Eichhorn, Comm. in Apoc, 2 tom. Gott. 1791;
comp. Christian Disciple (Bost.) for April, 1822,
and Christ. Examiner, May, 1830. J. C. Wood-
house, The Apoc. translated, vnth Notes, Lond.
1805; also Annotations on the Apoc. (a sequel to
Elsley and Slade). Lond. 1828. Heinrichs, Comm.
in Apoc 2 pt. Gott. 1818-21 (vol. x. of the l^st.
Nov. Edit. Kopp.). Ewald, Comm. in Apoc. exe-
geticus et criticus, Gott. 1828 ; Die Jokanneischen
Schriften iibers. u. erkldrt, Bd. ii. Gott. 1862.
(Important.) Ziillig, Die Offenb. Joh. vollstdndig
erkldrt, 2 Thle., Stuttg. 1834-40. Tinius, Die
Offenb. Joh. durch EinL, Uebers. u. Erkl. Allen
verstdndlich gemacht, Leipz. 1839. E. B. Elliott,
Hoi'ce Apocalypiicce (1843), 5th ed., 4 vols. Lond.
1862. Moses Stuart, Comm. on the Apocalypse, 2
vols. Andover, 1845, also reprinted in England;
perhaps his most elaborate work. De Wette, Kurze
Erkl. d. Offenb. Joh., Leipz. 1848 (Bd. iii. Th. 2
of his Exeg. Handb.), 3e Aufl., bearb. von W.
Moeller, 1862. Hengstenberg, Die Offenb. d. heil.
Joh., 2 Bde. Berl. 1849, 2e Ausg. 1861-62, trans,
by P. Fairbairn, Edin. 1851. Ebrai'd, Die Offenb.
Joh. erkldrt, Konigsb. 1853 (Bd. vii. of Olshau-
sen's Bibl. Comm.). Auberlen, Der Proph. Dan-
iel u. die Offenb. Joh., Bas. 1854, 2e Aufl. 1857,
Eng. trans. Edin. 1856. Dlisterdieck, K^-it. exeg.
Handb. ilb. d. Offenb. Joh., Gott. 1859, 2e Aufl.
1865 (Abth. xvi. of Meyer's Kommentar). F. D.
Maurice, Lectures on the Apoc, Cambr. 1861.
Bleek, Vorlesungen iiber die Apok., Berl. 1862.
Volkmar, Comm. zum Offenb. Joh., Ziir. 1862.
Desprez, The Apoc. fulfilled, new ed., Lond. 1865.
We may also name the editions of the Greek Test,
by Bloomfield, Webster and Wilkinson, Alford, and
Wordsworth, who has also published a separate ex-
position of the book. See further the literature
under Antichkist.

Critical editions of the Greek text, with a new
English version and various readings, have been
published by Dr. S. P. Tregelles (Lond. 1844)
and William Kelly (Lond. 1860), followed by his
Lectures on the Apoc. (Lond. 1861). The Second
Epistle of Peter, the Epistles of John and Judas,
and the Revelation : trans, from the Greek, with
Notes, New York (Amer. Bible Union), 1854,
4to, was prepared by the late Rev. John Lillie,
D. D.

On the theology of the Apocalypse, one may
consult the works on Biblical Theology by Lutter-
beck, Reuss, Messner, Lechler, Schmid, Baur, and
Beyschlag, referred to under John, Gospel of,
vol. ii. p. 1439 a, and the recent work of B. Weiss,
Bibl. Theol. des N. T, Berl. 1868, p. 600 ff.

RE'ZEPH (n^*n [stronghold, Fiirst] : ^
['Pa</)is, Vat.] 'Po<^6^s, and 'Pa</)e0; « [Comp.
"Pa<Te(p, '^aaefM ; Sin. in Is. Vafes'] Reseph).
One of the places which Sennacherib mentions, in
his taunting message to Hezekiah, as having been
destroyed by his predecessor (2 K. xix. 12; Is.
xxxvii. 12). He couples it with Haran and other
well-known Mesopotamian spots. The name is
still a common one, Yakut's Lexicon quoting nine
towns so called. Interpreters, however, are at va-

758: 1

a The Alex. MS. exhibits the same forms of the terchanged, namely, Pa<^e9 in 2 Kini
name as the Vat. ; but by a curious coincidence in- ' Isaiah.

f Pallets in

REZIA

riance between the principal two of these. The
one is a day's march west of the Euphrates, on
the road from Racca to Hums (Gesenius, Keil,
Thenius, Michaelis, SuppL); the other, again, is
east of the Euphrates, near Bagdad (Hitzig). The
former is mentioned by Ptolemy (v. 15) under the
name of 'Pija-dcpa, and appears, in the present im-
perfect state of our Mesopotamian knowledge, to
be the more feasible of the two. G.

RE'ZIA (S;?l [delight]: 'Paaid', [Vat.
Parreja:] Resia). A*n Asherite, of the sons of
UUa (1 Chr. vii. 39).

RE'ZIN (r?1 [i)erh. stable, firm, or prince,
Ges.] : 'Paaaaciu, 'Paariui ['Pa(rifx,"Paa(Tip; Vat.
in Is. Pacreiu, Paa-ei/j., VaacruV, Sin. in Is. Paaa-
(Ttiiu'i Alex. VaaacTwv, exc. Is. vii. 8, Pao-eiJ/:]
Rasin). 1. A king of Damascus, contemporary
with Pekah in Israel, and with Jotham and Ahaz
in Judaea. The policy of Rezin seems to have been
to ally himself closely with the kingdom of Israel,
and, thus strengthened, to carry on constant war
against the kings of Judah. He attacked Jotham
during the latter part of his reign (2 K. xv. 37 ) ;
but his chief war was with Ahaz, whose territories
he invaded, in company with Pekah, soon after
Ahaz had mounted the throne (about n. c. 741).
The combined army laid siege to Jerusalem, where
Ahaz was, but "could not prevail against it" (Is.
vii. 1; 2 K. xvi. 5). Rezin, however, "recovered
Elath to SjTia" (2 K. xvi. 6); that is, he con-
quered and held possession of the celebrated town
of that name at the head of the Gulf of Akabah,
which commanded one of the most important lines
of trade in the East. Soon after this he was
attacked by Tiglath-Pileser II., king of Assyria, to
whom Ahaz in his distress had made application ;
his armies were defeated by the Assyrian hosts ; his
city besieged and taken; his people carried away
captive into Susiana ( ? Kir) ; and he himself slain
(2 K. xvi. 9; compare Tiglath-Pileser's own in-
scriptions, where the defeat of Rezin and the de-
struction of Damascus are distinctly mentioned).
This treatment was probably owing to his<being re-
garded as a rebel ; since Damascus had been taken
and laid under tribute by the Assyrians some
time previously (Rawlinson's Herodoltts, i. 467).

G. R.

2. ['Paawj/ ; in Neh., Rom. 'Pacracav, FA.
Paeacov.] One of the families of tlie Nethinim
(Ezr. ii. 48; Neh. vii. 50). It furnishes another
example of the occurrence of non-Israelite names
amongst them, which is already noticed under Me-
HUNIM [iii. 1875, note a; and see Sisera]. In 1
Esdr. the name appears as Daisan, in which the
change from R to D seems to imply that 1 Esdras
at one time existed in Syriac or some other Semitic
language. G.

RE'ZON (ptn [prince]: [Rom. om. ; Vat.]
^Effpcafi' Alex. Pa^wj/: Razon). The son of Eli-
adah, a Syrian, who, when David defeated Hadad-
ezer king of Zobah, put himself at the head of a
band of freebooters and set up a petty kingdom at
Damascus (1 K. xi. 23). Whether he was an
officer of Hadadezer, who, foreseeing the destruc-
tion which David would inflict, prudently escaped
with some followers; or whether he gathered his
band of the remnant of those who survived the
slaughter, does not appetir. The latter is more
probable. The settlement of Rezon at Damascus
could not have been till some time after the dis-
172

RHEGIUM

2729

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

RHE'GIUM {'V-i]yiov: Rhegium). The men-
tion of this Italian town (which was situated on
the Bruttian coast, just at the southern entrance
of the straits of Messina) occurs quite incidentally
(Acts xxviii. 13) in the account of St. Paul's
voyage from Syracuse to Puteoli, after the ship-
wreck at Malta. But, for two reasons, it is worthy
of careful attention. By a curious coincidence the
figures on its coins are the very " twin-brothers "
which gave the name to St. Paul's ship. See
(attached to the article Castor and Pollux) the
coin of Bruttii, which doubtless represents the
forms that were painted or sculptured on the vessel.
And, again, the notice of the intermediate position
of Rhegium, the waiting there for a southerly wind
to carry the ship through the straits, the run to
Puteoli with such a wind within the twenty-four
hours, are all points of geographical accuracy which
help us to realize the narrative. As to the history
of the place, it was originally a Greek colony: it
was miserably destroyed by Dionysius of Syracuse :
from Augustus it received advantages which com-
bined with its geographical position in making it
important throughout the duration of the Roman
empire: it was prominently associated, in the
Middle Ages, with the varied fortunes of the Greek
emperors, the Saracens, and the Romans: and
still the modern Reggio is a town of 10,000 in-
habitants. Its distance across the straits from
Messina is only about six miles, and it is well seen

2730

RHESA

from the telegraph station above that Sicilian
town.« J. s. H.

RHE'SA i'PTja-d: Resa), son of Zorobabel in
the genealogy of Christ (Luke iii. 27). Lord A.
Hervey has ingeniously conjectured that Rhesa is
no person, but merely the title Rosk, i. e. " Prince,"
originally attached to the name of Zerubbabel, and
gradually introduced as an independent name into
the genealogy. He thus removes au important ob-
stacle to the reconciliation of the pedigrees in Mat-
thew and Luke (Hervey's Genealogies^ etc. pp. Ill,
114, 356-360). [Gknealogy of Jesus Christ,
i. 886 a; Zerubbakel.] G.

RHOT>A CPdSi? [rose-bushy. Rhode), lit.
Rose, the name of a maid who announced Peter's
arrival at the door of Mary's house after his mirac-
ulous release from prison (Acts xii. 13). [Por-
ter.]

RHODES {'p65os [rose] : Rhodus). The his-
tory of this island is so illustrious, that it is inter-
esting to see it connected, even in a small degree,
with the life of St. Paul. He touched there on his
return-voyage to Syria from the third misssionary
journey (Acts xxi. 1). It does not appear that he
' landed from the ship. The day before he had been
at Cos, an island to the N. W. ; and from Rhodes
he proceeded eastwards to Patara in Lycia. It
seems, from all the circumstances of the narrative,
that the wind was blowing from the N. W., as it
very often does in that part of the Levant. Rhodes
is immediately opposite the high Carian and Lycian
headlands at the S. W. extremity of the peninsula
of Asia Minor. Its position has had much to do
with its history. The outline of that history is as
follows. Its real eminence began (about 400 b. c.)
with the founding of that city at the N. E. extrem-
ity of the island, which still continues to be the
capital. Though the Dorian race was originally
and firmly established here, yet Rhodes was very
frequently dependent on others, between the Pelo-
ponnesian war and the time of Alexander's cam-
paign. After Alexander's death it entered on a
glorious period, its material prosperity being largely
developed, and its institutions deserving and obtain-
ing general esteem. As we approach the time of
the consolidation of the Roman power in the Le-
vant, we have a notice of Jewish residents in Rhodes
(1 Mace. XV. 23). The Romans, after the defeat of
Antiochus, assigned, during some time, to Rhodes
certain districts on the mainland [Caria ; Lycia] ;
and when these were withdrawn, upon more mature
provincial arrangements being made, the island still
enjoyed (from Augustus to Vespasian) a consider-
able amount of independence.^ It is in this inter-
val that St. Paul was there. Its Byzantine history
is again eminent. Under Constantine it was the
metropolis of the "Province of the Islands." It
was the last place where the Christians of the East
held out against the advancing Saracens ; and sub-
sequently it was once more famous as the home and

RIBLAH

fortress of the Knights of St. John. The most prom
inent remains of the city and harbor are memorials
of those knights. The best account of Rhodes will
be found in Ross, Reisen auf den Griech. Inseln,
iii. 70-113, and Reisen nac/i Kos, Halikarnassos,
Rhodos, etc., pp. 53-80. There is a good view, as
well as an accurate delineation of the coast, in the
English Admiralty Chart No. 1639. Perhaps the
best illustration we can atlduce here is one of the
early coins of Rhodes, with the conventional rose-
flower, which bore the name of the island on one
side, and the head of Apollo, radiated like the sun,
on the other. It was a proverb that the sun shone
every day in Rhodes. J. S. H.

o * Reggio is in full view from the harbor of Mes-
sina. The Apostle passed there in winter, probably in
February (as Luke's notations of time indicate), and
at that season he must have seen the mountains, both
of Sicily and of the mainland, covered with snow.
The name is from prjywiii, to break or burst through,
as if the sea had there torn ofif Sicily from the con-
tinent. See Pape's WUrterb. cler Griech. Eigennamen,
B. T. H.

b Two incidents in the life of Herod the Great con-
nected with Rhodes, are well worthy of mention here.

Coin of Rhodes

RHOD'OCUS ('P(J5o/cos: Rhodocus). A Jew
who betrayed the plans of his countrymen to Anti-
ochus Eupator. His treason was discovered, and
he was placed in confinement (2 Mace. xiii. 21).

B. F. W.

RHO'DUS CPSdor- Rhodus), 1 Mace. xv. 23. __
[Rhodes.] mI

RI'BAI [2 syl.] (^'D'^"] [whom Jehovah rf<?-"'
fends]: 'Pi^d [YatVcipa] in Sam., PejSte; Alex.
P-nfiai [FA. PajSetot] in Chr. : Ribai). The father
of Ittai the Benjamite of Gibeah, who was one of
David's mighty men (2 Sam. xxiii. 29 ; 1 Chr. xi.
31). -1

* RIBBAND. [Lace.] ^|

RIB'LAH, 1. (nb^nn, with the definite
article [fei'tility]: BtjAc^ '^ in both MSS. : Rebla).
One of the landmarks on the eastern boundary of
the land of Israel, as specified by Moses (Num.
xxxiv. 11). Its position is noted in this passage
with much precision. It was immediately between
Shepham and the sea of Cinnereth, and on the
" east side of the spring." Unfortunately Shepham
has not yet been identified, and which of the great
fountains of northern Palestine is intended by " the
spring " is uncertain. It seems hardly possible,
without entirely disarranging the specification of
the boundary, that the Riblah in question can be
the same with the " Riblah in the land of Hamath "
which is mentioned at a much later period of the
history. For, according to this passage, a great
distance must necessarily have intervened between
Riblah and Hamath. This will be evident from a
mere enumeration of the landmarks.

1. The north boundary: The Mediterranean,

When he went to Italy, about the close of the last Re-
publican struggle, he found that the city had suffered
much from Cassius, and gave liberal sums to restore it
(Joseph. Ant. xiv. 14, § 3). Here, also, after the bat-
tle of Actium, he met Augustus and secured his fovor
(ibid. XV. 6, § 6).

c Originally it appears to have stood *Ap)3rjAa ; but
the 'Ap has now attached it.self to the preceding name
— Sejre^ajn a p. Can this be the Arbela of 1 Mace,
ix. 2?

RIBLAH

Mount Hor, the entrance of Hamath, Zedad, Ziph-
ron, Hazar-enan.

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

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

The early Jewish interpreters have felt the force
of this. Confused as is the catalogue of the boun-
dary in the Targum Pseudojonathan of Num. xxxiv.,
it is plain that the author of that version considers
"the spring " as the spring of Jordan at Banias,
and Riblah, therefore, as a place near it. With
this agrees Parchi, the Jewish traveller in the 13th
and 14th centuries, who expressly discriminates be-
tween the two (see the extracts in Zunz's Benja-
min, ii. 418), and in our own day J. D. Michaelis
(Bibel fill' ifnyelehrien ; SuppL ad Lexica, No.
2313), and Bonfrerius, the learned editor of Euse-
bius's Onomasticon.

No place bearing the name of Riblah has been
yet discovered in the neighborhood of Banias.

2. Riblah in the land of Hamath (n|p5^.) once

nnba"], i. e. Riblathah: ^ AffiXaOa in both
MSS.;*[Rom. in 2 K. xxiii. 33, 'Pa$\adny xxv.
6, 21, 22, 'PejSAoflct:] RMatha). A place on the
great road between Palestine and Babylonia, at
which the kings of Babylonia were accustomed to
remain while directing the operations of their ar-
mies in Palestine and Phoenicia. Here Nebuchad-
nezzar waited while the sieges of Jerusalem and of
Tyre were being conducted by his lieutenants;
hither were brought to him the wretched king of
Judsea and his sons, and after a tmie a selection
from all ranks and conditions of the conquered city,
who were put to death, doubtless by the horrible
death of impaling, which the Assyrians practiced,
and the long lines of the victims to which are still
to be seen on their monuments (Jer. xxxix. 5, 6,
lii. 9, 10, 26, 27; 2 K. xxv. 6, 20, 21). In like
manner Pharaoh-Necho, after his successful victory
over the Babylonians at Carchemish, returned to
Riblah and summoned Jehoahaz from Jerusalem
before him (2 K. xxiii. 33).

This Riblah has no doubt been discovered, still
retaining its ancient name, on the right (east)
bank of the el-Asy (Orontes), upon the great road
which connects Baalbek and Hums, about 35 miles
N. E. of the former and 20 miles S. W. of the latter
place. The advantages of its position for the en-
campment of vast hosts, such as those of Egypt and
Babylon, are enumerated by Dr. Robinson, who vis-
ited it in 1852 {Bibl. Bes. iii. 545). He describes
it as " lying on the banks of a mountain stream in
the midst of a vast and fertile plain yielding the
most abundant supplies of forage. From this point
the roads were open by Aleppo and the Euphrates
to Nineveh, or by Palm}Ta to Babylon .... by
the end of Lebanon and the coast to Palestine and
Egypt, or through the Bukaa and the Jordan
Valley to the centre of the Holy Land." It ap-

o If Mr. Porter's identifications of Zedad and Hat-
sarenan are adopted, the difficulty is increased tenfold.
b The two great MSS. of the LXX. —Vatican (Mai)
and Alex. — present the name as follows : —
2 K. xxiii. 33, 'AjSAaa ; Ae/3Aoux.
2 K. XXT. 6, 'UpSePKaeav ] Ae/3Xa0a.

RIDDLE

2731

pears to have been first alluded to by Buckingham
in 1816.

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

* RICHES, Rev. xviii. 17, not plural but sin-
gular: "In one hour so great riches is come to
nought" (so also Wisd. v. 8). The original plu-
ral was richessis (Fr. richesse), as in WickUffe's
version, and was generally obsolete at the time of
the translation of the A. V. It stood at first also
in Jer. xlviii. 36, but as Trench mentions {Author-
ized Version, p. 60) was tacitly corrected, by
changing "is " to " are." H.

RIDDLE (HTIl: aiviyfia, trpS^X-nfia- pi'O-
blema, pi^ojjositio). The Hebrew word is derived
from an Arabic root meaning " to bend off," " to
twist," and is used for artifice (Dan. viii. 23), a
proverb (Prov. i. 6), a song (Ps. xlix. 4, Ixxviii. 2),
an oracle (Num. xii. 8), a parable (Ezr. xvii. 2),
and in general any wise or intricate sentence (Ps.
xciv. 4; Hab. ii. 6, &c.), as well as a riddle in our
sense of the word (Judg. xiv. 12-19). In these
senses we may compare the phrases (Trpo(\>^ \6ywvy
a-rpo<pal ■Kapa^oKwv (Wisd. viii. 8; Ecclus. xxxix.
2}, and irepnrXoK)) \6'ywv (Eur. Phosn. 497 ; Ge-
sen. s. v.), and the Latin scirpvs, which appears to
have been similarly used (Aul. Gell. Noct. Ait. xii.
6). Augustine defines an enigma to be any " ob-
scura allegoria" (De Triii. xv. 9), and points out,
as an instance, the passage about the daughter of
the horse-leech in Prov. xxx. 15, which has been
elaborately explained by Bellermann in a mono-
graph on the subject {JEnigmata Hebraica, Erf.
1798). Many passages, although not definitely
propounded as riddles, may be regarded as such,
e. (/. Prov. xxvi. 10, a verse in the rendering of
which every version differs from all others. The
riddles which the queen of Sheba came to ask of
Solomon (1 K. x. 1, ^Ade treipda-ai avrhv iv al-
vlyixaai ; 2 Chr. ix. 1 ) were rather " hard ques-
tions " referring to profound inquiries. Solomon
is said, however, to have been very fond of the
riddle proper, for Josephus quotes two profane his-
torians (Menander of Ephesus, and Dins ) to authen-
ticate a story that Solomon proposed numerous
riddles to Hiram, for the non-solution of which Hi-
ram was obliged to pay a large fine, until he sum-
moned to his assistance a Tyrian named Abdemon,
who not only solved the riddles, but propounded
others which Solomon himself was unable to an-
swer, and consequently in his turn incurred the
penalty. The word cCiviyfia occurs only once in
the N. T. (1 Cor. xiii. 12, "darkly," eV amy/xaTi,
comp. Num. xii. 8; Wetstein, Jv. T. ii. 158);
but, in the wider meaning of the word, many in-
stances of it occur in our Lord's discourses. Thus
Erasmus applies the term to Matt. xii. 43-45.
The object of such implicated meanings is obvi-
ous, and is well explained by St. Augustine:

2 K. xxv. 20, Ae/3A.a0a ; Ae|3Aa0a.
2 K. xxv. 21, 'Pe/3A.a0a ; Ae/3\a0a.
Jer. lii. 9, 10, 26, 27, Ae/3A.a0a, in both,
c * For interesting notices of this Riblah, see Dr.
Thomson's diary of a " Journey from Aleppo to Leb-
anon," Bibl. Sacra, v. 698 f. H.

2732 RIDDLE

''manifestis pascimur, obsouris exercemur^^ {De
Boot. Chiist. ii. 6).

We know that all ancient nations, and especially
Orientals, have been fond of riddles (Rosenmiiller,
Morgenl. iii. 68). We find traces of the custom
among the Arabs (Koran, xxv. 35), and indeed
several Arabic books of riddles exist — as Keidb al
Alydz in 1469, and a book of riddles solved, called
Akd al themin. But these are rather emblems and
devices than what we call riddles, although they
are very ingenious. The Persians call them Alffdz
and Afaamma (D'Herbelot, s. v. Algaz). They
were also known to the ancient Egyptians (Jablon-
ski, Pantheon ^gypt. 48). They were especially
used in banquets both by Greeks and Romans (Miil-
ler, Dm-, ii. 392; Athen. x. 457; Pollux, vi. 107;
A. Gell. xviii. 2; Diet, of Ant. p. 22), and the kind
of witticisms adopted may be seen in the literary
dinners described by Plato, Xenophon, Athenseus,
Plutarch, and Macrobius. Some have groundlessly
supposed that the proverbs of Solomon, Lemuel,
and Agur, were propounded at feasts, like the par-
ables spoken by our Lord on similar occasions (Luke
xiv. 7., etc.).

Kiddles were generally proposed in verse, like
the celebrated riddle of Samson, which, however,
was properly (as Voss points out, Instt. Oratt. iv.
11) no riddle at all, because the Philistines did not
possess the only clew on which the solution cmild
depend. For this reason Samson had carefully con-
cealed the fact even from his parents (Judg. xiv.
14, etc.). Other ancient riddles in verse are that
of the Sphinx, and that which is said to have
caused the death of Homer by his mortification at
being unable to solve it (Plutarch. Vit. Horn.).

Franc. Junius distinguishes between the greater
enigma, where the allegory or obscure intimation
is continuous throughout the passage (as in Ez.
xvii. 2, and in such poems as the Syrinx attributed
to Theocritus); and the lesser enigma or {mai-
viyfia, where the difficulty is concentrated in the
peculiar use of some one word. It may be useful
to refer to one or two instances of the latter, since
they are very frequently to be found in the Bible,
and especially in the Prophets. Such is the play

on the word tl'DW ("a portion," and "Shechem,"

the town of Ephraim) in Gen. xlviii. 22; on T1^?2

(indtzor, "a fortified city," and C^H^S^, Miz-

ratm, Egypt) hi Mic. vii. 12; on T|7.^ (Shdked,

"an almond-tree"), and *T|?tt7 {shdkad, "to

hasten "), in Jer. i. 11; on nD^"^ {Dumah, mean-
ing " Edom " and "the land of death"), in Is.

xxi. 11 ; on "!Jtt7ti£?, Sheshach (meaning " Baby-
lon," and perhaps "arrogance"), in Jer. xxv. 26,
Ii. 41.

It only remains to notice the single instance of
a riddle occurring in the N. T., namely, the number
of the beast. This belongs to a class of riddles
very common among Egyptian mystics, the Gnos-
tics, some of the Fathers, and the Jewish Cabbalists.
The latter called it Gtmatria (i. e. yicofxirpia) of
which instances may be found in Carpzov {App.
Crit. p. 542), Reland {Ant. Hebr. i. 25), and some

RIMMON

of the commentators on Rev. xiii. 16-18. Thus
tt7n3 (ndchdsh), "serpent," is made by the Jews
one of the names of the Messiah, because its
numerical value is equivalent to H'^tpZi; and the
names Shushan and Esther are connected together
because the numerical value of the letters com-
posing them is 661. Thus the Marcosians regarded
the number 24 as sacred from its being the sum
of numerical values in the names of two quaternions
of their Ji^ons, and the Gnostics used the name
Abraxas as an amulet, because its letters amount
numerically to 365. Such idle fancies are not
unfrequent in some of the Fathers. We have
already mentioned (see Cross) the mystic explana-
tion by Clem. Alexandrinus of the number 318 in
Gen. xiv. 14, and by TertuUian of the number 300
(represented by the letter T or a cross) in Judg.
vii. 6, and similar instances are supplied by the
Testimonia of the Pseudo-Cyprian. The most
exact analogies, however, to the enigma on the
name of the beast, are to be found in the so-called
Sibylline verses. We quote one which is exactly
similar to it, the answer being found in the name
'l-qcTovs = 888, thus : I = 10 -^- >, = 8 -|- o- = 200
-j- o = 70 -f V = 400 -f s = 200 = 888. It is
as follows, and is extremely curious :

'H^ei <rapKO(|>6pos fli/rjTOis o/moiov/nei'os ev yrj
Tetra-epa (fxuvrjefTa <^epet, ra 8' a^wva Sv avraS
Ai(rau>v aarpaydktav (?), apiOfjiOV 6' oKoy e^ovojunji'W
"Okto) yap novdSas, oo-cras fie/caSas enl toutois,
"HS' e/caTOvrdSas o/ctw a7ri<rTOTepoi,s avOptawot,^
Ovvofxa firjAwo-et.

With examples like this before us, it would be
absurd to doubt that St. John (not greatly re-
moved in time from the Christian forgers of the
Sibylline verses) intended some na7ne as an answer
to the number 666. The true answer must be
settled by the Apocalyptic commentators. Most
of the Fathers supposed, even as far back as Ire-
naeus, the name Adreiuos to be indicated. A list
of the other very numerous solutions, proposed in
different ages, may be found in Elliott's Horce
Apocalypticce, from which we have quoted several
of these instances {Hor. Apoc. iii. 222-234).

F. W. F. ]

* RIE for RYE, Ex. ix. 32 and Is. xxviii. 25
(marg. spelt)^ in the oldest editions of the A. V.

RIM^MON (P^~] {^pomegranate']: 'Vefxfidov:
Rem,mon). Rimmon, a Benjamite of Beeroth, was
the father of Rechab and Baanah, the murderers
of Ishbosheth (2 Sam. iv. 2, 5, 9).

RIM'MON (1"1^1 [pomegranate]: "P(fjifx6.v'.
Remmon). A deity, worshipped by the Syrians
of Damascus, where there was a temple or house
of Rimmon (2 K. v. 18). Traces of the name of
this god appear also in the proper names Hadad-
rimmon and Tabrimmon, but its signification is
doubtful. Serarius, quoted by Selden (De dis
Syns, ii. 10), refers it to the Heb. rimmon^ a
pomegranate, a fruit sacred to Venus, who is thus
the deity worshipped under this title (compare
Pomona, from pomum). Ursinus (Arboretum Bibl.
cap. 32, 7) explains Rimmon as the pomegranate,

a In this passage it is generally thought that She-
shach is put for Babel, by the principle of alphabeti-
cal inversion known as the atlibash. It will he seen
that the passages above quoted are chiefly instances

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

RIMMON

the emblem of the fertilizing principle of nature,
the personified natura nahirans, a symbol of fre-
quent occurrence in the old religions (Bahr, Sym-
bolik, ii. 122^). If this be the true origin of the
name, it presents us with a relic of the ancient
tree-worship of the East, which we know to have
prevailed in Palestine. But Selden rejects this
derivation, and proposes instead that Rimmon is

from the root D^*!, rum, " to be high," and sig-
nifies "most high;" like the Phoenician Elioun,

and Heb. l"^"*/^. Hesychius gives 'Pa/ias, 6
S^iffTos OeSs. ' Clerlcus, Vitringa, Rosenmiiller,
and Gesenius were of the same opinion.

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

Between these dilFerent opinions there is no pos-
sibility of deciding. The name occurs but once,
and there is no evidence on the point. But the
conjecture of Selden, which is approved by Gese-
nius, has the greater show of probability.

W. A. W.

RIM'MON ('D*1^"1, t. e. Rimmono [pome-
granate]: T) 'Pf/x/j.u>i/' Remmono). ■ A city of
Zebulun belonging to the Merarite Levites (1 Chr.
vi. 77). There is great discrepancy between the
list in which it occurs and the parallel catalogue
of Josh. xxi. The former contains two names in
place of the four of the latter, and neither of them
the same. But it is not impossible that Dimnah
(Josh. xxi. 35) may have been originally Rimmon,
as the D and R in Hebrew are notoriously easy to
confound. At any rate there is no reason for sup-
posing that Rimmono is not identical with Rinmion
of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 13), in the A. V. Remmon-
METHOAR. The redundant letter was probably
transferred, in copying, from the succeeding word
— at an early date, since all the MSS. appear to
exhibit it, as does also the Targum of Joseph.
[Dr. Robinson inquires whether this Rimmon
may not be the present Rurnindneh, a little north
of Nazareth. See Bibl. Res. ii. 340 (2d ed. ). — H.'

RIM'MON (P^l [imnegranate] : 'Epooficiod
'Peixfitau', Alex. Pe^juwj/; [in 1 Chr., Rom. 'Pe^
vwu, Vat. P€jUjwcDj/:J Remincm). A town in the
southern portion of Judah (Josh. xv. 32), allotted
to Simeon (Josh. xix. 7; 1 Chr. iv. 32: in the
former of these two passages it is inaccurately given
in the A. V. as Remmon). In each of the above
lists the name succeeds that of Ain, also one of the
cities of Judah and Simeon. In the catalogue of
the places reoccupied by the Jews after the return
from Babylon (Neh. xi. 29) the two are joined

QltSn ^^1? : LXX. omits: et in Remmon), and
appear in the A. V. as En-Rimmon. There is
nothing to support this single departure of the
Hebrew text from its practice in the other lists
except the fact that the Vatican LXX. (if the
edition of Mai may be trusted) has joined the
names in each of the lists of Joshua, from which
it may be inferred that at the time of the LXX.

RIMMON, THE ROCK 2733

translation the Hebrew text there also showed
them joined. On the other hand there does not
appear to be any sign of such a thing in the
present Hebrew MSS.

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

RIM'MON PA'REZ (VT?? l'^"! Vpome-
granate of the breach or rent]: 'Peyu^eoj/ *apes).
The name of a march-station in the wilderness
(Num. xxxiii. 19, 20). Rimmon is a common
name of locality. The latter word is the same as
that found in the plural form in Baal-Perazim,
" Baal of the breaches." Perhaps some local con-
figuration, such as a " cleft," might account for its
being added. It stands between Rithmah and
Libnah. No place now known has been identified
with it. H. H.

RIM'MON, THE ROCK(r^^n'' V^D:
T] iT€Tf}a Tov 'Pefifidiv; Joseph, irerpa 'Pod: peira
cujus vocahulum est Remmon ; peira Remmon).
A cliff (such seems rather the force of the Hebrew
word sela) or inaccessible natural fastness, in which
the six hundred Benjamites who escaped the slaugh-
ter of Gibeah took refuge, and maintained them-
selves for four months until released by the act of
the general body of the tribes (Judg. xx. 45, 47,
xxi. 13).

It is described as in the " wilderness " (midbar),
that is, the wild uncultivated (though not unpro-
ductive) country which lies on the east of the
central highlands of Benjamin, on which Gibeah
was situated — between them and the Jordan Val-
ley. Here the name is still found attached to a
village perched on the summit of a conical chalky
hill, visible in all directions, and commanding the
whole country (Rob. Bibl. Res. i. 440).

The hill is steep and naked, the white limestone
everywhere protruding, and the houses clinging to
its sides and forming as it were huge steps. On
the south side it rises to a height of several hun-
dred feet from the great ravine of the Wady 3fut-
ydh ; while on the west side it is almost equally
isolated by a cross valley of great depth (Porter,
Handbk. p. 217; Mr. Finn, in Van de Velde,
Memoir, p. 345). In position it is (as the crow
flies) 3 miles east of Bethel, and 7 N. E. of Gibeah
( T}ileil el-Ful). Thus in every particular of name,
character, and situation it agrees with the require-

a In two out of Jt8 four occurrences, the article is
omitt«d both in the Hebrew and LXX.

2734 KING

luents of the Rock Rininion. It was known in
the days of Eusebius and Jerome, who mention it
( Onomasticon, " Renimon " ) — though confounding
it with Rimmon in Simeon — as 15 Roman miles
northwards from Jerusalem. G.

RING (nVS^: SaKTvXios'- nnnulus). The
ring was regarded as an iiTdispensable article of a
Hebrew's attire, inasmuch as it contained his sig-
net, and even owed its name to this circumstance,
the term tahbaath being derived from a root sig-
nifying " to impress a seal." It was hence the
symbol of authority, and as such was presented by
Pharaoh to Joseph (Gen. xli. 42), by Aha.suerus to
Haman (Esth. iii. 10), by Antiochus to Philip (1
Mace. vi. 15), and by the father to the prodigal
son in the parable (Luke xv. 22). It was treasured
accordingly, and became a proverbial expression for
a most valued object (Jer. xxii. 24; Hag. ii. 23:
Ecclus. xlix. 11). Such rings were worn not only
by men, but by women (Is. iii. 21 ; Mishn. Shahb.
p. 6, § 3), and are enumerated among the articles
presented by men and women for the service of the
Tabernacle (Ex. xxxv. 22). The signet-ring was
worn on the right hand (Jer. l. c). We may con-
clude, from Ex. xxviii. 11, that the rings contained
a stone engraven with a device, or with the owner's
name. Numerous specimens of Egyptian rings have
been discovered, most of them made of gold, very
massive, and containing either a scarabaeus or an
engraved stone (Wilkinson, ii. 337). The number

Egyptian Rings,

of rings worn by the Egyptians was truly remark-
able. The same profusion was exhibited also by
the Greeks and Romans, particularly by men {Diet,
of Ant. "Rings''). It appears also to have pre-
vailed among the Jews of the Apostolic age ; for in
Jam. ii. 2, a rich man is described as xpvcroSaKTv-
\ios, meaning not simply "with a gold ring,'' as
in the A. V., but "golden-ringed" (like the
Xpv(r6x^ip, "golden-handed" of Lucian, Timon,
c. 20), implying equally well the presence of several
gold rings. For the term (/dlil, rendered "ring"
in Cant. v. 14, see Ornaments. W. L. B.

* RINGLEADER (Acts xxiv. 5), appKed to
Paul by Tertullus in his speech before Felix, where
it stands for 7rpa>To<rTtiTrjy. It implies, of itself,
nothing opprobrious, being properly a military title,
namely, of one who stands in front of the ranks
as leader. It marks a bad preeminence here,
especially from being associated with XoifiSs,
"plague, pest" (A. V. j)estilent fellow). Ring-
leader had a good or neutral sense as well as bad
in the older English writers. H.

RIN'NAH (n3") [a cry of joy, or wailing]'.
'Arci; Alex. Vavvuv: Rinna). One of the sons
of Shimon in an obscure and fragmentary gene-
alogy of the descendants of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 20).
In the LXX. and Vulgate he is made " the son of
Hanan," Ben-hanan being thus translated.

« /IC'*'^. This reading is preferred by Bochart
{Phaleg, iii. 10), and is connected by him with the

RITHMAH

RI'PHATH (ri5*'l [a h-eaking in piece$
<cr?w, Sin.]: "Pi^dB'i Alex. p«^oe in Chr.: Ri-
photh), the second son of Gomer, and the brother of
Ashkenaz and Togarmah (Gen. x. 3). The He-
brew text in 1 Chr. i. 6 gives the form Diphath,"
but this arises out of a clerical error similar to that
which gives the forms Rodanim and Hadad for
Dodanim and Hadar (1 Chr. i. 7, 50; Gen. xxxvi.
39). The name Riphath occurs only in the gen-
ealogical table, and hence there is little to guide us
to the locality which it indicates. The name itself
has been variously identified with that of the Rhi-
psean mountains (Knobel), the river Rhebas in Bi-
thynia (Bochart), the Rhibii, a people living eastward
of the Caspian Sea (Schulthess), and the Ripheans
[Riphathaeans ?], the ancient name of the Paphlago-
nians (Joseph. Ant. i. 6, § 1). This last view is cer-
tainly favored by the contiguity of Ashkenaz and
Togarmah. The weight of opinion is, however, in
favOr of the Rhipsean mountains, which Knobel
( Volkej't. p. 44) identifies etymologically and geo-
graphically with the Carpathian range in the N. E.
of Dacia. The attempt of that writer to identify
Riphath with the Celts or Gauls, is evidently based
on the assumption that so important a race ought
to be mentioned in the table, and that there is no
other name to apply to them ; but we have no evi-
dence that the Gauls were for any lengthened period
settled in the neighborhood of the Carpathian range.
The Rhipaean mountains themselves existed more
in the imagination of the Greeks than in reality, and
if the received etymology of that name (from ^jTrai,
"blasts") be correct, the coincidence in sound
with Riphath is merely accidental, and no connec-
tion can be held to exist between the names. The
later geographers, Ptolemy (iii. 5, § 15, 19) and
others, placed the Rhipsean range where no range
really exists, namely, about the elevated ground
that separates the basins of the Euxine and Baltic
seas. W. L. B.

RIS'SAH (n&n [a ruin]: [Rom. Veaadv,
Vat. Aetro-a; Alex.] Pecrcra' Ressa). The name,
identical with the word which signifies " a worm,"
is that of a march-station in the wilderness (Num.
xxxiii. 21, 22). It lies, as there given, between
Libnah and Kekelathah, and has been considered
(Winer, s. v.) identical with Rasa in the Peuting.
Itiner., 32 Roman miles from Ailah (Elah), and
203 miles south of Jerusalem, distinct, however,
from the 'P^ctra of Josephus (A?it. xiv. 15, §
2). No site has been identified with Rissah.

H. H.

RITH'MAH (Tiy^n'l [see below] : 'Pa0o;ua:
Rethma). The name of a march-station in the
wilderness (Num. xxxiii. 18, 19). It stands there
next to Hazeroth [Hazeroth], and probably lay
in a N. E. direction from that spot, but no place
now known has been identified with it. The name

is probably connected with CHn, Arab.

H")'

commonly rendered "juniper," but more correctly
" broom." It carries the affirmative PT, common
in names of locality, and found especially among
many in the catalogue of Num. xxxiii. H. H.

names of the town Tobata and the mountain Tibium
in the N. of Asia Minor.

RIVER

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

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

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

1. For the perennial river, Nahar (Hn^). Pos-
sibly used of the Jordan in Ps. Ixvi. 6, Ixxiv. 15;
of the great Mesopotamian and Egyptian rivers
generally in Gen. ii. 10 ; Ex. vii. 19 ; 2 K. xvii. 6 ;
Ez. iii. 15, &c. But with the definite article, han-
Nahar, ^'■the river," it signifies invariably the
Euphrates (Gen. xxxi. 21; Ex. xxiii. 31; Num.
xxiv. 6; 2 Sam. x. 16, Ac, &c.). With a few ex-
ceptions (Josh. i. 4, xxiv. 2, 14, 15; Is. lix. 19; Ez.
xxxi. 15), ndhar is uniformly rendered "river" in
our version, and accurately, since it is never applied
to the fleeting fugitive torrents of Palestine.

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

Neither of these words expresses the thing in-
tended; but the term "brook" is peculiarly un-
happy, since the pastoml idea which it conveys is
quite at variance with the general character of the
wadies of Palestine. Many of these are deep ab-
rupt chasms or rents in the solid rock of the hills,
and have a savage, gloomy aspect, far removed
from that of an English brook. For example, the
Amon forces its way through a ravine several hun-
dred feet deep and about two miles wide across the
top. The Wady Zerka, probably the Jabbok,
which Jacob was so anxious to interpose between
his family and Esau, is equally unlike the quiet
"meadowy brook" with which we are familiar.

RIVER OF EGYPT

2735

o Jerome, in his Qiicestiones in Geiusim, xxtI. 19,
draws the following curious distinction between a val-
ley and a torrent : " Et hie pro valle torrens scriptus

And those which are not so abrupt and savage are
in their width, their irregularity, their forlorn arid
look when the torrent has subsided, utterly unlike
"brooks." Unfortunately our language does not
contain any single word which has both the mean-
ings of the Hebrew nachal and its Arabic equiva-
lent wady, which can be used at once for a dry val-
ley and for the stream which occasionally flovra
through it. Ainsworth, in his Annotations (on
Num. xiii. 23), says that "bourne" has both
meanings; but "bourne " is now obsolete in Eng-
lish, though still in use in Scotland, where, owing
to the mountainous nature of the country, the
"burns" partake of the nature of the wadies of
Palestine in the iiTegularity of their flow. Mr.
Burton ( Geotj. Joui-n. xxiv. 209 ) adopts the Italian
Jiumara. Others have proposed the Indian term
nullah. The double application of the Hebrew
nachal is evident in 1 K. xvii. 3, where Elijah is
commanded to hide himself in (not by) the nachal
Cherith and the brink of the nachal.

3. Yeor (T^S"^), a word of Egyptian origin
(see Gesen. Thes. p. 558), applied to the Nile only,
and, in the plural, to the canals by which the Nile
water was distributed throughout Egypt, or to
streams having a connection with that country. It
is the word employed for the Nile in Genesis and
Exodus, and is rendered by our translators " the
river," except in the following passages, Jer. xlvi.
7, 8 ; Am. viii. 8, ix. 5, where they substitute " a
flood " — much to the detriment of the prophet's
metaphor. [See Nile, vol. iii. p. 2140 6.]

4. r«6rt^ (vS^**), from a root signifying tumult
or fullness, occurs only six times, in four of which
it is rendered "river," namely, Jer. xvii. 8; Dan.
viii. 2, 3, 6.

5. Peleg (^vQ), from an uncertain root, prob-
ably connected with the idea of the division of
the land for irrigation, is translated " river " in Ps.
i. 3, Ixv. 9 ; Is. xxx. 25 ; Job xx. 17. Elsewhere it
is rendered " stream '' (Ps. xlvi. 4), and in Judg. v.
15, 16, "divisions," where the allusion is probably
to the artificial streams with which the pastoral
and agricultural country of Keuben was irrigated
(Ewald, Dichter, i. 129 ; Gesen. Thes. p. 1103 b).

6. Aphik (p'^CM). This appears to be used
without any clearly distinctive meaning. It is
probably from a root signifying strength or force,
and may signify any rush or body of water. It is
translated "river" in a few passages: Cant. v.
12 ; Ez. vi. 3, xxxi. 12, xxxii. 6, xxxiv. 13, xxxv. 8,
xxxvi. 4, 6; Joel i. 20, iii. 18. In Ps. cxxvi. 4
the allusion is to temporary streams in the dry re-
gions of the "south." ^ G.

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

1. D'^"l!^tt *in5 : iroTttfjihs AlyxntTov- fluvim
JEgypti (Gen. xv. 18), " the river of Egypt," that
is, the Nile, and here — as the western border of
the Promised Land, of which the eastern border
was Euphrates — the Pelusiac or easternmost
branch.

est^ nunquam enim in valle invenitur puteus aqum

6 * It should be "river " (iroTa/uios) in both instan-
ces, Rev. xii. 15, 16, and not « flood " (A. V.). fl.

2736

RIVER OF EGYPT

tpdpay^ Aiyv-rrrov, TroTOyubs AlyvTrrov, 'Pivok6-
povpa, pi- : t07i-etis ^(jypti, rivus yEyypti (Num.
xxxiv. 5 ; Josh. xv. 4, 47 ; 1 K. viii. 65 ; 2 K. xxiv.
7; Is. xxvii. 12, in the last passage translated " the
stream of Egypt"). It is the common opinion
that this second term designates a desert stream
on the border of Egypt, still occasionally flowing in
the valley called Wddi-l-' Areesh. The centre of
the valley is occupied by the bed of this torrent,
which only flows after rains, as is usual in the des-
ert valleys. The correctness of this opinion can
only be decided by an examination of the passages
in which the term occurs, for the ancient transla-
tions do not aid us. When they were made there
must have been great uncertainty on the subject.
In the LXX. the term is translated by two literal
meanings, or perhaps three, but it is doubtful

whether vHD can be rendered "river," and is once
represented by Rhinocolura (or Rhinocorura), the
name of a town on the coast, near the Wddi-
i-'Are€sh, to which the modern EPAreesh has suc-
ceeded.

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

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

a Herodotus, whose account is rather obscure, says
that from Phoenicia to the borders of the city Cadytis
(probably Gaza) the country belonged to the Palsestin'e
Syrians ;. from Cadytis to Jenysus to the Arabian king ;
then to the Syrians again, as far as Lake Serbonis, near
Mount Casius. At Lake Serbonis, Egypt began. The
eastern extremity of Lake Serbonis is somewhat to the
westward of Rhinocolura, and Mount Casius is more
than halfway from the latter to Pelusium. Herodotus
afterwards states, more precisely, that from Jenysus to
" Lake Serbonis and Mount Casius " was three days'
journey through a desert without water. He evidently

It must be observed that the distinctive charac-
ter of the name, " Nachal of Egypt," as has been
well suggested to us, almost forbids our supposing
an insignificant stream to be intended, although
such a stream might be of importance from posi-
tion as forming the boundary.

If we infer that the Nachal of Eeypt is the
Nile, we have to consider the geographical conse-
quences, and to compare the name with known
names of the Nile. Of the branches of the Nile,
the easternmost, or Pelusiac, would necessarily be
the one intended. On looking at the map it seems
incredible that the Philistine territory should ever
have extended so far; the Wddi-P Ai^eesb is dis-
tant from Gaza, the most western of the Philistine
towns ; but Pelusium, at the mouth and most east-
em part of the Pelusiac branch, is very remote.
It must, however, be remembered, that the tract
from Gaza to Pelusium is a desert that could never
have been cultivated, or indeed inhabited by a set-
tled population, and was probably only held in the
period to which we refer by marauding Arab tribes,
which may well have been tributary to the Philis-
tines, for they must have been tributary to them or to
the Egyptians, on account of their isolated position
and the sterility of the country, though no doubt
maintaining a half-independence.** All doubt on
this point seems to be set at rest by a passage, in
a hieroglyphic inscription of Sethee I., head of the
XlXth dynasty, b. c. cir. 1340, on the north wall
of the great temple of El-Karnak, which mentions
" the foreigners of the SHASU from the fort of
TARU to the land of KANANA" (SHASU
SHA'A EM SHTEM EN TARU ER PA-KAN'-
ANA, Brugsch, Geogr. Inschr. i. p. 261, No.
1265, pi. xlvii.). The identification of " the fort
of TARU" with any place mentioned by the
Greek and Latin geographers has not yet been sat-
isfactorily accomplished. It appears, from the bas-
relief, representing the return of Sethee I. to Egypt
from an eastern expedition, near the inscription
just mentioned, to have been between a Leontop-
olis and a branch of the Nile, or perhaps canal, on
the west side of which it was situate, commanding
a bridge {Ibid. No. 1266, pi. xlviii.). The Leontop-
olis is either the capital of the Leontopolite Nome,
or a town in the Heliopolite Nome mentioned by
Josephus {Ant. xiii. 3, § 1). In the former case
the stream would probably be the Tanitic branch,
or perhaps the Pelusiac; in the latter, perhaps the
Canal of the Red Sea. We prefer the first Leon-
topolis, but no identification is necessary to prove
that the SHASU at this time extended from
Canaan to the east of the Delta (see on the whole
subject Geogr. Inschr. i. pp. 260-266, iii. pp. 20, 21).

Egypt, therefore, in its most flourishing period,
evidently extended no further than the east of the
Delta, its eastern boundai'y being probably the
Pelusiac branch, the territory of the SHASU, an
Arab nation or tribe, lying between Egypt and

makes Mount Casius mark the western boundary of the
Syrians ; for although the position of Jenysus is uncer-
tain, the whole distance from Gaza (and if Cadytis be not
Gaza, we cannot extend the Arabian territory further
east) does not greatly exceed three days' journey (iii.
5. See Rawlinson's edit. 398-400). If we adopt Capt.
Spratt's identifications of Pelusium and Mount Casius,
we must place them much nearer together, and the
latter far to the west of the usual supposed place (Sm,
town). But in this case Herodotus would intend the
western extremity of Lake Serbonis, which seems un-
likely.

RIVER OF EGYPT

Canaan. It might be supposed that at this time
the SHASU had made an inroad into Egypt, but
it must be remembered that in the latter period of
the kings of Judah, and during the classical period,
Pelusium was the key of Egypt on this side. The
Philistines, in the time of their greatest power,
which appears to have been contemporary with the
period of the Judges, may well be supposed to
have reduced the Arabs of this neutral territory to
the condition of tributaries, as doubtless was also
done by the Pharaohs.

It must be remembered that the specification of
a certain boundary does not necessarily prove that
the actual lands of a state extended so far; the
limit of its sway is sometimes rather to be under-
stood. Solomon ruled as tributaries all the king-
doms between the Euphrates and the land of the
Philistines and the border of Egypt, when the
Land of Promise appears to have been fully occu-
pied (]. K. iv. 21, comp. 24). When, therefore,
it is specified that the Philistine territory as far as
the Nachal-Mizraim remained to be taken, it need
scarcely be inferred that the territory to be inhab-
ited by the Israelites was to extend so far, and this
stream's being an actual boundary of a tribe may
be explained on the same principle.

If, with the generality of critics, we think that
the Nachal-Mizraim is the Wddi-l- Areesh, we
must conclude that the name Shihor is also applied
to the latter, although elsewhere designating the
Nile," for we have seen that Nachal-Mizraim and
Shihor are used interchangeably to designate a
stream on the border of the I'romised Land. This
difficulty seems to overthrow the common opinion.
It nmst, however, be remembered that in Joshua
xiii. 3, Shihor has the article, as though actually
or originally an appellative, the former seeming to
be tlie more obvious inference from the context.
[Shihok of Egypt; Sihok.]

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

parallel Arabic word t<?dcfee, i^t^U though ordi-

" y »

narily used for valleys and their winter-torrents,
as in the case of the Wddi-l-Areesh itself, has
been employed by the Arabs in Spain for true
rivers, the Guadalquivir, etc. It may, however, be
suggested, that in Nachal-Mizraim we have the
ancient form of the Neel-Misr of the Arabs, and
that Nachal was adopted from its similarity of
sound to the original of NeTAos. It may, indeed,
be objected that NetAos is held to be of Iranian
origin. The answer to this is, that we find Javan,
we will not say the lonians, called by the very
name, HANEN, used in the Rosetta Stone for
"Greek" (SHAEE EN HANEN, TOI2 TE
EAAHNIKOI2 rPAMMA2IN), in the lists of
countries and nations, or tribes, conquered by, or

a There is a Shihor-libnath in the north of Pales-
tine, mentioned in Joshua (xix. 26), and supposed to
correspond to the Belus, if its name signify " the river
of glass." But we have no ground for giving Shihor
the signification " river ; " and when the connection
of the Egyptians, and doubtless of the Phoenician and
other colonists of northeastern Egypt, with the manu-
facture of glass is remembered, it seems more Ukely
that Shihor-libnath was named from the Nile.

b We agree with Lepsius in this identification ( Ueber

RIZPAH

2737

subject to, the Pharaohs, as early as the reign of
Amenoph III., r. c. cir. 140O.'> An Iranian and
even a Greek connection with Egypt as early as
the time of the Exodus, is therefore not to be
treated as an impossibility. It is, however, re-
markable, that the word NelAos does not occur in
the Homeric poems, as though it were not of
Sanskrit origin, but derived from the Egyptians or
Phoenicians.

Brugsch compares the Egyptian MUAW EN
KEM "Water of I^ypt," mentioned in the phrase
" From the water of Egypt as far as NEHEREEN
[Mesopotamia] inclusive," but there is no internal
evidence in favor of his conjectural identification
with the stream of Wddi-l-'' Aretsh {Geog. Jnschr.
i. 54, 55, pi. vii. no. 303). R. S. P.

* Dr. J. L. Porter {Handbook, and Art. in
Kitto's Cyclop, of Bibl. Lit.) proposes to solve the
difficulty created by the terms iV^ri/tor-Mizraim and
A^rtc/irrZ-Mizraim by making " the proper distinc-
tion between the country given in covenant promise
to Abraham, and that actually allotted to the
Israelites." The Nile may have been in contem-
plation in the original promise, and the term
A^a/ia?--Mizraim may have been " the designation
of the Nile in Abraham's time, before the Egyp-
tian word yeor became known."

Nachal is commonly used in the Hebrew Scrip-
tures in its primary meaning of a " torrent" or an
intermittent brook — as Job vi. 15, the brook that
dries away. Is. xv. 7, and Amos. vi. 14, the brook
of the desert, the wady lying between Kerek and
Gebal — and it is highly improbable that this
term would have been chosen to designate the vast
and ceaseless volume of the Nile. Robinson {Phys.
Geog. of the Holy Land, p. 123) gives his mature
opinion in favor of the rendering " torrent of
Egypt, which of old was the boundary between
Palestine and Egypt. At the present day it is
called Wady el-Arish ; and comes from the passes
of Jebel et-Tih towards Sinai, draining the great
central longitudinal basin of the desert. It reaches
the sea without a permanent stream ; and is still
the boundary between the two countries. Near its
mouth is a small village, el-'Arish, on the site of
the ancient Rhinocolura, as is shown by columns
and other Roman remains."

Upon the whole the probabilities are in favor of
this identification, and the weight of authority is
upon its side. J, P. T.

* RIVERS OF WATER. [Foot, Water-

ING WITH THE.]

RIZ'PAH (nQ^T : 'Peff<^c{; [Alex, in 2 Sam.
xxi. 8, P6^<|)o0;] Joseph. 'Puiacpoi'- Respha), con-
cubine to king Saul, and mother of his two sons
Armoni and Mephibosheth. Like many others of
the prominent female characters of the Old Testa-
ment — Ruth, Rahab, Jezebel, etc. — Rizpah would
seem to have been a foreigner, a Hivite, descended
from one of the ancient worthies of that nation,
Ajah or Aiah,<^ son of Zibeon, whose name and

der Namen der lonier avf den Mg. Denkm'dlem,
Konigl. Akad. Berlin). His views have, however, been
combated by Bunsen (Egypt's Place, iii. 603-606),
Brugsch ( Geogr. Inschr. ii. 19, pi. xiii. no. 2), and De
R«ug6 ( Tombeau d'Akmes, p. 43).

c The Syriac-Peshito and Arabic Versions, in 2 Sam.
iii., read Ana for Aiah — the name of another ancient
Hivite, the brother of Ajah, and equally the son of
Zibeon. But it is not fair to lay much stress on this,
as it may be only the eiror — easily made — of a care-

2738 RIZPAH

fame are preserved in the Ishniaelite record of Gen.
xxxvi. If this be the case, Saul was commencing
a practice, which seems with subsequent kings to
have grown almost into a rule, of choosing non-
Israelite women for their inferior wives. David's
intrigue with Ikthsheba, or liath-shua, the wife of
a Hittite, and possibly herself a Canaanitess,« is per-
haps not a case in jx)int ; but Solomon, Kehoboam,
and their successors, seem to have had their harems
filled with foreign women.

After the death of Saul and occupation of the
country west of the Jordan by the Philistines,
Rizpah accompanied the other inmates of the royal
family to their new residence at Mahanaim ; and it
is here that her name is first introduced to us as
the subject of an accusation leveled at Abner by
Ishbosheth (2 Sam. iii. 7), a piece of spite which
led first to Abner's death through Joab's treachery,
and ultimately to the murder of Ishbosheth him-
self. The accusation, whether true or false — and
fix)m Abner's \ehement denial we should naturally
conclude that it was false — involved more than
meets the ear of a modern and English reader.
For amongst the Israelites it was considered " as a
step to the throne to have connection with the
widow or the mistress of the deceased king." (See
Michaelis, Laws of Moses, art. 54.) It therefore
amounted to an insinuation that Abner was about
to make an attempt on the throne.

We hear nothing more of Kizpah till the tragic
story which has made her one of the most familiar
objects to young and old in the whole Bible (2 Sam.
xxi. 8-11). Every one can appreciate the love
and endurance with which the mother watched over
the bodies of her two sons and her five relatives, to
save them from an indignity peculiarly painful to
the whole of the ancient world (see Ps. Ixxix. 2;
Hom. Jl. i. 4, 5, &c., &c.). But it is questionable
whether the ordinary conception of the scene is
accurate. The seven victims were not, as the A.
V. implies, "hung;" they were crucified. The
seven crosses were planted in the rock on the top
of the sacred hill of Gibeah ; the hill which, though
not Saul's native place,'' was through his long resi-
dence there so identified with him as to retain his
name to the latest existence of the Jewish nation

ROBBERY

less transcriber; or of one so fomiliar with the an-
cient names as to have confounded one with the
other.

a Comp. Gen. xxxviii., where the "daughter of
Shua," the Canaanitess, should really be Bath-shua.

b Saul was probably born at Zelah, where Kish's
sepulchre, and therefore his home, was situated.
[Zelah.]

c 'T^n5, 2 Sam. xxi. 6-

d pt^n, has- Safe.

c 1. 7^S : apwayrj, apwayfJiaTa: rapiruB.

2. \r^% from p*nQ, "break:" i£iKia: dila-
ceratio.

3. 1W, from *7*Ttt7, " waste : " oXedpo? : rapince.

4. V Vtt7 : irpovofirj : prada : « prey," « spoil."
[Booty.]

(2.) Robbee: —

1. TT'^S, part, from TTS, " rob : " npovofievov :
vcutems.

2. '^''"IQ, part, of ^"^5, " break : '• Aoi/ios : tatro :
Mic.ii. 13* "breaker."

(1 Sam. xi. 4, &c., and see Joseph. B. J. v.
1). The whole or part of this hill seems at the
time of this occurrence to have been in some special
manner c dedicated to Jehovah, possibly the spot
on which Ahiah the priest had deposited the Ark
when he took refuge in Gibeah during the Philis-
tine war (1 Sam. xiv. 18). The victims were sacri-
ficed at the beginning of barley-harvest — the sacred
and festal time of the Passover — and in the full
blaze of the summer sun they hung till the fall of
the periodical rain in October. During the whole
of that time Rizpah remained at the foot of the
crosses on which the bodies of her sons were ex-
posed : the Mater dolorosa, if the expression may
be allowed, of the ancient dispensation. She had
no tent to shelter her from the scorching sun which
beats on that open spot all day, or from the drench-
ing dews at night, but she spread on the rocky
floor the thick mourning garment of black sack-
clothe' which as a widow she wore, and crouching
there she watched that neither vulture nor jackal
should molest the bodies. We may surely be justi-
fied in applying to Rizpah the words with which
another act of womanly kindness was commended,
and may say, that " wheresoever the Bible shall go,
there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be
told for a memorial of her." G.

ROAD. This word occurs but once in the
Authorized Version of the Bible, namely, in 1
Sam. xxvii. 10, where it is used in the sense of

"raid" or "inroad." the Hebrew word (titt^Q)
being elsewhere (e. ff. ver. 8, xxiii. 27, xxx. 1, 14,
&c.) rendered "invade" and "invasion."

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

* ROBBERS. [Churches, Robbers of;
Thieves.]

ROBBERY, e Whether in the larger sense
of plunder, or the more limited sense of theft, sys-
tematically organized, robbery has ever been one of
the principal employments of the nomad tribes of
the East. From the time of Ishmael to the present
day, the Bedouin has been a " wild man," and a
robber by trade, and to carry out his objects s'uc-

3. 0*^12^, Job xviii. 9 : Sti/^wi/Tes : sitis. Targum,
with A. v., has " robbers ; " but it is most commonly
rendered as LXX., Job t. 5, sitientes.

4. I^Ci? : Arjo-TTjs: latro: from T"!^? "waste."

5. npti? : ex^pos : deripiens : A. V. " spoiler."

6. :232: #cA67rTrjs:/Mr: A. V." thief."
(3.) Rob : —

1. TTS : Siapird^D) : depopulor.

2. T'T2 : a^aipew : violenter au/ero.

3. I^V, " return," " repeat ; " hence in Pi. sur-
round, circumvent (Ps. cxix. 61) : TrepiTrXoK^voi : ctV-
cumplecti; usually affirm, reiterate assertions (Ges. p.
997).

4. yD.p, " cover," " hide : " irrepvi^w : affigo (Ges.
p. 1190)." "^

5. nDtt? : Stapjrafo) : diripio.

6. Dpti? (same as last) : npovofjievui : deprcedor.

7. 1232 : KkenTO): furor. A. Y. "steal."

ROBBERY

cessfully, so far from being esteemed disgraceful, is
regarded as in the highest degree creditable (Gen.
xvT. 12; Burckhardt, Notes on Bed. i. 137, 157).
An instance of an enterprise of a truly Bedouin
character, but distinguished by the exceptional
features belonging to its principal actor, is seen in
the night-foray of David (1 Sam. xxvi. G-12), with
which also we may fairly compare Hom. //. K.
204, &c. Predatory inroads on a large scale are
seen in the incursions of the Sabseans and Chal-
dseans on the property of Job (Job i. 15, 17); the
revenge coupled with plunder of Simeon and Levi
(Gen. xxxiv. 28, 29); the reprisals of the Hebrews
upon the Midianites (Num. xxxi. 32-54), and the
frequent a»id often prolonged invasions of "spoil-
ers " ufKin the Israelites, together with their re-
prisals, during the period of the Judges and Kings
(Judg. ii. 14, vi. 3, 4; 1 Sam. xi., xv.; 2 Sam.
viii., X.; 2 K. v. 2; 1 Chr. v. 10, 18-22). Indi-
vidual instances, indicating an unsettled state of
the country during the same period, are seen in
the " liers-in-wait " of the men of Shechem (Judg.
ix. 25), and the mountain retreats of David in the
cave of Adullam, the hill of Hachilah, and the
wilderness of Maon, and his alxxle in Ziklag, in-
vaded and plundered in like manner by the Amalek-
ites (1 Sam. xxii. 1, 2, xxiii. 19-25, xxvi. 1, xxvii.
6-10, XXX. 1).

Similar disorder in the country, complained of
more than once by the prophets (Hos. iv. 2, vi. 9;
Mic. ii. 8), contiimed more or less through Mac-
cabajan down to Roman times, favored by the cor-
rupt adnjinistration of some of the Roman gover-
nors, in accepting money in redemption of punish-
ment, produced those formidable bands of robbers,
80 easily collected and with so much difficulty sub-
dued, who found shelter in the caves of Palestine
and Syria, and who infested the country even in
the time of our Lord, almost to the very gates of
Jerusaletn (Luke x. 30; Acts v. 36, 37, xxi. 38).
[Judas ok Galilee; Caves.] In the later his-
tory also of the country the robbers, or sicarii, to-
gether with their leader, John of Gischala, played
a conspicuous part (Joseph. jB. J. iv. 2, § 1; 3, § 4;
7, § 2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There seems no reason to suppose that the law
underwent any alteration in Solomon's time, as
Michaelis supposes ; the expression in Prov. vi

ROGELIM

2739

sevenfold, i. e. to the full amount, and for this pur-
pose, even give all the substance of his house, and
thus in case of foilure be liable to servitude (Mi-
chaelis, Laws of Moses, § 284). On the other hand,
see Bertheau on Prov. vi. ; and Keil, Arch. Hebr.
§ 154. Man-stealing was punishable with death
(Ex. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7). Invasion of right
in land was strictly forbidden (Deut. xxvii. 17 ; Is.
V. 8; Mic. ii. 2).

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

* ROBE. [Mantle.]

ROB'OAM i'Popodfi: Roboam), Ecclus. xlvii.
23; Matt. i. 7. [Rehoboam.]

ROE, ROEBUCK (^^V, tz^U (m. ) ; H^D^,
izeb'iyyah ([.): SopKoi^, SSpKuv, SopKoSiou- caj/i'ea,
damula). There seems to be little or no doubt
that the Hebrew word, which occurs frequently in
the O. T., denotes some species of antelope, prob-
ably the Gnzella dorcas, a native of Egypt and
North Africa, or the G. Arabicn of Syria and
Arabia, which appears to be a variety only of the
dorcas. The gazelle was allowed as food (Deut.
xii. 15, 22, etc.); it is mentioned as very fleet of
foot (2 Sam. ii. 18; 1 Chr. xii. 8); it was hunted
(Is. xiii. 14; Prov. vi. 5); it was celebrated for its
loveliness (Cant. ii. 9, 17, viii. 14). The gazelle
is found in Egypt, Barbary, and Syria. Stanley,
(iS. (f P. p. 207) says that the signification of the
word Ajalon, the valley " of stags," is still justified
by " the gazelles which the peasants hunt on its
mountain slopes." Thomson (The Land and the
Book, p. 172) says that the mountains of Naphtali
" abound in gazelles to this day."

GazeUa Arabica.

The ariel gazelle {G. Arabica), which, if not a
different species, is at least a well-marked variety
of the dorcas, is common in Syria, and is hunted
by the Arabs with a falcon and a greyhound ; the
repeated attacks of the bird upon the head of the
animal so bewilder it that it falls an easy prey to
the greyhound, which is trained to watch the flight
of the falcon. Many of these antelopes are also
taken in pitfalls into which they are driven by the
shouts of the hunters. The large, full, soft eye of
the gazelle has long been the theme of oriental
praises. W. H.

ROG'ELIM (D'^b^n [fuller's place, Ges.] :
[Rom. 'PcayeWi/x; Vat.'] Pa>76A\ei/i, and so Alex.,
though once Pa>76A€ift: Rogelim). The residence
of BarziUai the Gileadite (2 Sam. xvii. 27, xix. 31)

31, is, that a thief detected in stealing should restore I in the highlands east of the Jordan. It is mea>

2740

ROHGAH

tioiied on this occasion only. Nothing is said to
guide us to its situation, and no name at all resem-
bling it appears to have been hitherto discovered on
the spot.

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

ROH'GAH (Hin'in, CethU), n|nn, Keri
\outcrie$\: "Pooya'-, Ahx. Ovpaoya- Ronya). An
Asherite, of the sons of Shamer (1 Chr. vii. 34).

RO'IMUS CPotAtos). Rkhum 1 (1 Esdr. v. 8).
The name is not traceable in the Vulgate.

ROLL (Hv^P: KecpaXls)- A book in ancient
times consisted of' a single long strip of paper or
parchment, which was usually kept rolled up on a
stick, and was unrolled when a person wished to
read it. Hence arose the term viegillah, from
^d/rt/,« " to roll," strictly answering to the Latin
volumen, whence comes our volume ; hence also the
expressions, " to spread " and " roll together," '' in-
stead of " to open " and " to shut " a book. The
full expression for a book was "a roll of writing,"
or "a roll of a book" (Jer. xxxvi. 2; Ps. xl. 7;
Yjr. ii. 9), but occasionally "roll" stands by itself
(Zech. V. 1, 2; Ezr. vi. 2). The Ke(pa\is of the
LXX. originally referred to the ornamental knob
(the umbilicus of the Latins) at the top of the stick
or cylinder round which the roll was wound. The
use of the term meyillah implies, of course, the ex-
istence of a soft and pliant material : what this ma-
terial was in the Old Testament period, we are not
informed ; but as a knife was required for its de-
struction (Jer. xxxvi. 23), we infer that it was
parchment. The roll was usually written on one
side only (Mishn. Erub. 10, § 3), and hence the
particular notice of one that was " written within
and without" (Ez. ii. 10). The writing was ar-
ranged in columns, resembling a door in shape,
and hence deriving their Hebrew name,^ just as
"column," from its resemblance to a co/Mm«a or
pillar. It has been asserted that the term megillah
does not occur before the 7th cent. b. c, being
first used by Jeremiah (Hitzig, in Jer. xxxvi. 2);
and the conclusion has been drawn that the use of
such materials as parchment was not known until
that period (Ewald, Gesch. i. 7*1, note; Gesen.
Thes. p. 289). This is to assume, perhaps too con-
fidently, a late date for the composition of Ps. xl.,
and to ignore the collateral evidence arising out of
the expression " roll together " used by Is. xxxiv.
4, and also out of the probable reference to the
Pentateuch in Ps. xl. 7, "the roll of the book," a
copy of which was deposited by the side of the
Ark (Deut. xxxi. 26). We may here add that the
term in Is. viii. 1, rendered in the A. V. "roll,"
more correctly means tablet. W. L. B.

* " Flying roll " (Zech. v. 1, 2) means a book or
parchment rolled up, represented in the prophet's
vision as seen borne through the air. It was an
expressive symbol of Jehovah's judgments written

ROMAN EMPIRE

out as it were, and decreed, which at his bidding
would descend and sweep away the ungodly. See
Keil, Die Kleinen Propheten, p. 560 f. (1866). H.

* ROLLER (b^nn, from a verb = "to
6eW') = bandage, so called from its form as a
roll, Ezek. xxx. 21. The prophet declares that the
arm of Pharaoh should be broken and no art or
appliance of surgery could enable it to wield again
the sword of the oppressor. H.

ROMAM'TI-E'ZER ("IT? '^np^'TH :
'Pw/xeT^i-eXep ; [Vat. Pw/te/, Po/ieAxe'c^^;] Alex.
Pu}fjLf/j,di-i(cp in 1 Chr. xxv. 4, but faififO-fiieCcp
in 1 Chr. xxv. 31: Romemihiezer). One of the
fourteen sons of Heman, and chief of the 24th
division of the singers in the reign of David (1
Chr. xxv. 4, 31). [Hothir, Amer. ed.]

* RO'MAN, RO'MANS ('Pufialos: Roma-
nus), 1 Mace. viii. 1, 23-29, xii. 16, xiv. 40, xv. 16;
2 Mace. viii. 10, 36, xi. 34 ; John xi. 48 ; Acts xvi.
21, 37, 38, xxii. 25-29, xxiii. 27, xxv. 16, xxviii. 17.
[KoMAN Empire, Eome.] A.

* ROMAN CITIZENSHIP. [Citizen-
ship.]

ROMAN EMPIRE. The history of the Ro-
man Empire, properly so called, extends over a pe-
riod of rather more than five hundred years, namely,
from the battle of Actium, B. c. 31, when Augustus
became sole ruler of the Roman world, to the abdi-
cation of Augustulus, A. D. 476. The Empire, how-
ever, in the sense of the dominion of Rome over a
large number of conquered nations, was in full
force and had reached wide limits some time be-
fore the monarchy of Augustus was established.
The notices of Roman history which occur in the
Bible are confined to the last century and a half of
the commonwealth and the first century of the im-
perial monarchy.

The first historic mention of Rome in the Bible
is in 1 Mace. i. 10. Though the date of the founda-
tion of Rome coincides nearly with the beginning
of the reign of Pekah in Israel, it was not till the
beginning of the 2d century b. c. that the Romans
had leisure to interfere in the affairs of the East.
When, however, the power of Carthage had been
effectually broken at Zama, B. c. 202, Koman arms
and intrigues soon made themselves felt through-
out Macedonia, Greece, and Asia Minor. About
the year 161 b. c. Judas Maccabseus heard of the
Romans as the conquerors of Philip, Perseus, and
Antiochus (1 Mace. viii. 5, 6). " It was told him
also how they destroyed and brought under their
dominion all other kingdoms and isles that at any
time resisted them, but with their friends and
such as relied upon them they kept amity " (viii.
11, 12). In order to strengthen himself against
Demetrius king of Syria he sent ambassadors to
Rome (viii. 17), and concluded a defensive alliance
with the senate (viii. 22-32). This was renewed by
Jonathan (xii. 1) and by Simon (xv. 17; Joseph.
A7it. xii. 10, § 6, xiii. 5, § 8; 7, § 3). Notices of
the embassy sent by Judas, of a tribute paid to
Rome by the Syrian king, and of further inter-
course between the Romans and the Jews, occur
in 2 Mace. iv. 11, viii. 10, 36, xi. 34. In the

II
II

bbs.

b In the Hebrew, W"}^ (2 K. xix. 14) and b^S
(Is. xxxiv. 4) : in the Greek, avan-rvo-o-eiv and ■jrrvaa-ft.p
(Luke iv. 17, 20).

c n'ln^"^ (A. V. « leaves," Jer. xxxvi. 23). Hit- 1
zig maintains that the word means "leaves," and
that the megillah in this case was a book like our own,
consisting of numerous pages.

ROMAN EMPIRE

course of the narrative mention is made of the
Roman senate {rh ^ou\evTT)piov, 1 Mace. xii. 3),
of the consul Lucius {6 uttotos, 1 Mace. xv. 15,
16), and the Roman constitution is described in a
somewhat distorted form (1 Mace. viii. 14-16).

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

In the year 65 b. c, when Syria was made a
Roman province by Pompey, the Jews were still
governed by one of the Asmonajan princes. Aristo-
bulus had lately driven his brother Hyrcanus from
the chief priesthood, and was now in his turn at-
tacked by Aretas, king of Arabia Petrsea, the ally
of Hyrcanus. Pompey's lieutenant, M. iEmilius
Scaurus, interfered in the contest b. c. 64, and the
next year Pompey himself marched an army into
Judaea and took Jerusalem (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 2,
3, 4; B. J. i. 6, 7). From this time the Jews
were practically under the government of Rome.
Hyrcanus retained the high-priesthood and a titu-
lar sovereignty, subject to the watchful control of
his minister Antipater, an active partisan of the
Roman interests. Finally, Antipater's son, Herod
the Great, was made king by Antony's interest,
B. c. 40, and confirmed in the kingdom by Augus-
tus, b. c. 30 (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 14, xv. 6). The
Jews, however, were all this time tributaries of
Rome, and their princes in reality were mere Ro-
man procurators. Julius Caesar is said to have ex-
acted from them a fourth part of their agricul-
tural produce in addition to the tithe paid to
Hyrcanus {Ant. xiv. 10, § 6). Roman soldiers
were quartered at Jerusalem in Herod's time to
support him in his authority (Ant. xv. 3, § 7).
Tribute was paid to Rome, and an oath of allegiance
to the emperor as well as to Herod appears to
have been taken by the people {Ant. xvii. 2, § 2).
On the banishment of Archelaus, A. D. 6, Judaea
became a mere appendage of the province of
Syria, and was governed by a Roman procurator,
who resided at Caesarea. Galilee and the adjohiing
districts were still left under the government of
Herod's sons and other petty princes, whose do-
minions and titles were changed from time to
time by successive emperors : for details see Herod.

Such were the relations of the Jewish people to
the Roman government at the time when the N. T.
history begins. An ingenious illustration of this
state of things has been drawn from the condition
of British India. The Governor General at Cal-
cutta, the subordinate governors at Madras and
Bombay, and the native princes, whose dominions
have been at one time enlarged, at another incorpo-
rated with the British presidencies, find their re-
spective counterparts in the governor of Syria at
Antioch, the procurators of Judaea at Caesarea, and
the members of Herod's family, whose dominions
were alternately enlarged and suppressed by the
Roman emperors (Conybeare and Howson, Life of
St. Paul, i. 27). These and other characteristics of
Roman rule come before us constantly in the N. T.
Thus we hear of Caesar the sole king (John xix. 15)

— of Cyrenius, "governor of Syria" (Luke ii. 2)

— of Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus, the " gov-
ernors," i. e. procurators, of Judaea — of the "te-
trarchs " Herod, Philip, and Lysanias (Luke
1) — of "king Agrippa" (Acts xxv. 13) — of Ro-
man soldiers, legions, centurions, publicans — of the
tribute-money (Matt. xxii. 19) — the taxing of

ROMAN EMPIRE

2741

" the whole world " (Luke ii. 1) — Italian and Au-
gustan cohorts (Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1) — the appeal
to Caesar (Acts xxv. 11). Three of the Roman em-
perors are mentioned in the N. T. — Augustus
(Luke ii. 1), Tiberius (Luke iii. 1), and Claudius
(Acts xi. 28, xviii. 2). Nero is alluded to under
various titles, as Augustus (Se/Suo-rc^s) and Caesar
(Acts xxv. 10, 11, 21, 25 ; Phil. iv. 22), as 6 K^t-
pios, "my lord" (Acts xxv. 26), and apparently
in other passages (1 Pet. ii. 17; Rom. xiii. 1).
Several notices of the provincial administration of
the Romans and the condition of provincial cities
occur in the narrative of St. Paul's journeys (Acts
xiii. 7, xvi. 12, 35, 38, xviii. 12, xix. 38).

In illustration of the sacred narrative it may be
well to give a general account, though necessarily
a short and imperfect one, of the position of the
emperor, the extent of the empire, and the admin-
istration of the provinces in the time of our Lord
and his Apostles. Fuller information will be found
under special articles.

I. When Augustus became sole ruler of the Ro-
man world he was in theory simply the first citizen
of the republic, entrusted with temporary powers
to settle the disorders of the State. Tacitus says
that he was neither king nor dictator, but "prince"
(Tac. Ann. i. 9), a title implying no civil authority,
but simply the position of chief member of the sen-
ate (princeps senatus). The old magistracies were
retained, but the various powers and prerogatives
of each were conferred upon Augustus, so that while
others commonly bore the chief official titles, Au-
gustus had the supreme control of every department
of the state. Above all he was the Emperor (Im-
perator). This word, used originally to designate
any one entrusted with the iraperium, or full mili-
tary authority over a Roman army, acquired a new
significance when adopted as a permanent title by
Julius Caesar. By his use of it as a constant pre-
fix to his name in the city and in the camp he
openly asserted a paramount military authority over
the state. Augustus, by resuming it, plainly indi-
cated, in spite of much artful concealment, the real
basis on which his power rested, namely, the sup-
port of the army (Merivale, Roman Empire, vol.
iii.). In the N. T. the emperor is commonly des-
ignated by the family name " Caesar," or the dig-
nified and almost sacred title " Augustus " (for its
meaning, comp. Ovid, Fasti, i. 609). Tiberius is
called by implication riyefxciiv in Luke iii. 1, a title
applied in the N. T. to Cyrenius, Pilate, and
others. Notwithstanding the despotic character of
the government, the Romans seem to have shrunk
from speaking of their ruler under his military title
(see Merivale, Jiom. Empire, iii. 452, and note) or
any other avowedly despotic appellation. The use
of the word d Kvpios, dominus, " my lord," in Acts
xxv. 26, marks the progress of Roman servility be-
tween the time of Augustus and Nero. Augustus
and Tiberius refused this title. Caligula first bore
it (see Alford's note in I. c. ; Ovid, Fast. ii. 142).
The term ^acriAevs, " king," in John xix. 15, 1
Pet. ii. 17, cannot be closely pressed.

The Empire was nominally elective (Tac. Ann.
xiii. 4); but practically it passed by adoption (see
Galba's speech in Tac. Hist. i. 15), and till Nero's
time a sort of hereditary right seemed to be recog-
nized. The dangers inherent in a military govern-
ment were, on the whole, successfully averted till
the death of Pertinax, A. d. 193 (Gibbon, ch. iii.
p. 80). but outbreaks of military violence were not
wanting in this earlier period (comp. Wenck's note

2742

ROMAN EMPIRE

on Gibbon, I. c). The array was systematically
bribed by donatives at the commencement of each
reign, and the mob of the capital continually fed
and anmsed at the expense of the provinces. We
are reminded of the insolence and avarice of the
soldiers in Luke iii. 14. The reigns of Caligula,
Nero, and Doniitian show that an emperor might
shed the noblest blood with impunity, so long as
he abstained from offending the soldiery and the
populace.

II. Extent of the Empire. — Cicero's description
of the Greek states and colonies as a " fringe on the
skirts of barbarism " (Cic. De Rep. ii. 4) has been
well applied to the Roman dominions before the
conquests of Pompey and Caesar (Merivale, Bom.
Empire, iv. 409). The Roman Empire was still
confined to a narrow strip encircling the Mediter-
ranean Sea. Pompey added Asia Minor and Syria.
Ciesar added Gaul. The generals of Augustus over-
ran the N. W. portion of Spain and the country
between the Alps and the Danube. The bounda-
ries of the empire were now the Atlantic on the
W., the Euphrates on the E., the deserts of Africa,
the cataracts of the Nile, and the Arabian deserts
on the S., the British Channel, the Rhine, the
Danube, and the Black Sea on the N. The only
subsequent conquests of importance were those
of Britain by Claudius, and of Dacia by Trajan.
The only independent powers of importance were
the Parthians on the E. and the Germans on the N.

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

This large population was controlled in the time
of Tiberius by an army of 25 legions, exclusive of
the praetorian guards and other cohorts in the
capital. The soldiers who composed the legions
may be reckonetl in round numbers at 170,000
men. If we add to these an equal number of aux-
iliaries (Tac. Ann. iv. 6) we have a total force of
340,000 men. The praetorian guards may be reck-
oned at 10,000 (Dion Cass. Iv. 24). The other co-
horts would swell the garrison at Rome to 15,000
or 16,000 men. For the number and stations of
the legions in the time of Tiberius, comp. Tac.
Ann. iv. 5.

The navy may have contained about 21,000 men
{Les Cesars, ii. 429; comp. Merivale, iii. 534).
The legion, as appears from what has been said,
must have been " more like a brigade than a regi-
ment," consisting as it did of more than 6,000 in-
fantry with cavalry attached ((^onybeare and How-
son, ii. 285). For the "Italian and Augustan
bands" (Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1) see Army, vol. i. p.
164 [and Italian Band, Amer. ed.].

III. The Pi-ovinces. — The usual fate of a coun-
try conquered by Rome was to become a subject
province, governed directly from Rome by officers
sent out for that purpose. Sometimes, however,
as we have seen, petty sovereigns were left in pos-
session of a nominal independence on the borders,
or within the natural limits, of the province. Such

rt * On this subject one may consult C. G. Zumpt's
JJeber den Stand der Bevolkerun^ u. die VoUcsvermek'
rung im AUerthum, fol. pp. 1-92 (Berl. 1841). H.

a system was useful for rewarding an ally, for em-
ploying a busy ruler, for gradually accustoming a
stubborn people to the yoke of dependence. There
were differences too in the political condition of
cities within the provinces. Some were free cities,
i. e., were governed by their own magistrates, and
were exempted from occupation by a Roman garri-
son. Such were Tarsus, Antioch in Syria, Ath-
ens, Ephesus, Thessalonica. See the notices of
the " Politarchs " and " Demos " at Thessalonica,
Acts xvii. 5-8, the " town-clerk " and the as-
sembly at Ephesus, Acts xix. 35, 39 (C. and H.
Life of St. Paul, i. 357, ii. 79). Occasionally,
but rarely, free cities were exempted from taxa-
tion. Other cities were " Colonies," i. e. commu-
nities of Roman citizens transplanted, like garri-
sons of the imperial city, into a foreign land.
Such was Philippi (Acts xvi. 12). Such, too,
were Corinth, Troas, the Pisidian Antioch. The
inhabitants were for the most part Romans (Acts
xvi. 21), and their magistrates delighted in the Ro-
man title of Praetor {crTpaTr}y6s), and in the at-
tendance of lictora (pafidovxoi), Acts xvi. 35. (C.
and H. i. 315.)

Aiigustus divided the provinces into two classes,
(1) Imperial, (2) Senatorial; retaining in his own
hands, for obvious reasons, those provinces where
the presence of a large military force was neces-
sary, and committing the peaceful and unarmed
provinces to the Senate. The Imperial provinces
at first were — Gaul, Lusitania, Syria, Phoenicia,
Cilicia, Cyprus, and ^gypt. The Senatorial prov-
inces were Africa, Numidia, Asia, Achaea and
Epirus, Dalmatia, Macedonia, Sicily, Crete and
Cyrene, Bithynia and Pontus, Sardinia, Baetica
(Dion C. liii. 12). Cyprus and Gallia Narbonen-
sis were subsequently given up by Augustus, who
in turn received Dalmatia from the Senate. Many
other changes were made afterwards. The N. T.
writers invariably designate the governors of Sen-
atorial provinces by the correct title of avQvira-
Toi, proconsuls (Acts xiii. 7, xviii. 12, xix. 38).
[Cyprus.] For the governor of an Imperial prov-
ince, properly styled "Legatus C«esaris " {Trpea-
jSeuT^y), the word riyefidcv (Governor) is used in
the N. T.

The provinces were heavily taxed for the benefit
of Rome and her citizens. " It was as if England
were to defray the expenses of her own administra-
tion by the proceeds of a tax levied on her Indian
empire" (Liddell, Hist, of Rome, i. 448). In old
times the Roman revenues were raised mainly from
three sources: (1.) The domain lands: (2.) A di-
rect tax (tributum) levied upon every citizen; (3.)
From customs, tolls, harbor duties, etc. The agra-
rian law of Julius Caesar is said to have extin-
guished the first source of revenue (Cic. ad Att. ii.
xvi.; Dureau de la Malle, ii. 430). Roman citi-
zens had ceased to pay direct taxes since the con-
quest of Macedonia, B. c. 167 (Cic. de Off. ii. 22;
Plut. ^mil. Paul. 38), except in extraordinary
emergencies. The main part of the Roman revenue
was now drawn from the provinces by a direct tax
(Krjj/o-oy, <p6poSy Matt. xxii. 17, Luke xx. 22),
amounting probably to from 5 to 7 per cent, on the
estimated produce of the soil (Dureau de la Malle,
ii. 418). The indirect taxes too (tcAtj, vectigalia,
Matt. xvii. 25; Dureau de la Malle, ii. 449) appear
to have been very heavy {Jhid. ii. 433, 448). Au-
gustus on coming to the empire found the regular
sources of revenue impaired, while his exiienseg
must have been very great. To say nothing of the

ROMAN EMPIRE

pay of the army, he is said to have supported no
less than 200,000 citizens in idleness by the miser-
able system of pubHc gratuities. Hence the neces-
sity of a careful valuation of the property of the
whole empire, vrhich appears to have been made
more than once in his reign. [Census.] For the
historical difficulty about the taxing in Luke ii. 1,
see Cyrenius. Augustus appears to have raised
both the direct and indirect taxes (Dureau de la
Malle, ii. 433, 448).

The provinces are said to have been better gov-
erned under the Empire than under the Common-
wealth, and those of the emperor better than those
of the Senate (Tac. Ann. i. 76, iv. 6; Dion, liii.
14). Two important changes were introduced un-
der the Empire. The governors received a fixed
pay, and the term of their command was prolonged
(Joseph. A7U. xviii. 6, § 5). But the old mode of
levying the taxes seems to have been continued.
The companies who farmed the taxes, consisting
generally of knights, paid a certain sum into the
Roman treasury, and proceeded to wring what they
could from the provincials, often with the conniv-
ance and support of the provincial governor. The
work was done chiefly by underlings of the lowest
class (portitores). These are the publicans of the
N. T.

On the whole it seems doubtful whether the
wrongs of the provinces can have been materially
alleviated under the imi^erial government. It is
not likely that such rulers as Caligula and Nero
would be scrupulous about the means used for re-
plenishing their treasury. The stories related even
of the reign of Augustus show how slight were
the checks on the tynmny of provincial governors.
See the story of Licinus in Gaul {Diet, of Gr. and
Rom. Biog. sub voce), and that of the Dalmatian
chief (Dion, Iv.). The sufierings of St. Paul, pro-
tected as he was to a certain extent by his Roman
citizenship, show plainly how fittle a provincial had
to hope from the justice of a Roman governor.

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

The condition of the Roman Empire at the time
when Christianity appeared has often been dwelt
upon, as aftbrding obvious illustrations of St. Paul's
expression that the " fullness of time had come "
(Gal. iv. 4). The general peace within the limits
of the Empire, the formation of military roads, the
suppression of piracy, the march of the legions, the
voyages of the corn fleets, the general increase of
traffic, the spread of the Latin language in the
West as Greek had already spread in the East, the
external unity of the Empire, offered facilities hith-
erto unknown for the spread of a world-wide relig-
ion. The tendency, too, of a despotism like that
of the Roman Empire to reduce all its subjects to
a dead level, was a powerful instrument in breaking
down the pride of privileged races and national
religions, and familiarizing men with the truth that
" God hath made of one blood all nations on the
face of the earth" (Acts xvii. 24, 26). But still
more striking than this outward preparation for the
diffusion of the Gospel was the appearance of a deep

ROMAN EMPIRE

2743

and wide-spread corruption which seemed to defy
any human remedy. It would be easy to accumu-
late proofs of the moral and political degradation
of the Romans under the Empire. It is needless
to do more than allude to the corruption, the
cruelty, the sensuality, the monstrous and unnat-
ural wickedness of the iieriod as revealed in the
heathen historians and satirists. "Viewed as a
national or political history," says the great his-
torian of Rome, " the history of the Roman Empire
is sad and discouraging in the last degree. We
see that things had come to a point at which no
earthly power could afford any help; we now have
the development of dead powers instead of that of
a vital energy" (Niebuhr, Lect. v. 194). Not-
withstanding the outward appearance of peace,
unity, and reviving prosperity, the general condi-
tion of the people must have been one of great
misery. To say nothing of the ftxct that probably
one-half of the population consisted of slaves, the
great inequality of wealth at a time when a whole
province could be ownetl by six landowners, the
absence of any middle class, the utter want of any
institutions for alleviating distress such as are found
in all Christian countries, the inhuman tone of
feeling and practice generally prevailing, forbid us
to think favorably of the happiness of the world
in the famous Augustan age. We must remember
that "there were no public hospitals, no institu-
tions for the relief of the infirm and poor, no
societies for the improvement of the condition of
mankind from motives of charity. Nothing was
done to promote the instruction of the lower classes,
nothing to mitigate the miseries of domestic slavery.
Charity and general philanthropy were so little re-
garded as duties, that it requires a very extensive
acquaintance with the literature of the times to
find any allusion to them" (Arnold's Later Roman
Commonicealth, ii. 398). If we add to this that
there was probably not a single religion, except the
Jewish, which was felt by the more enlightenetl
part of its professors to be real, we may form some
notion of the world which (ilhristianity had to
reform and purify. We venture to quote an elo-
quent description of its " slow, imperceptible, con-
tinuous aggression on the heathenism of the Roman
Empire."

" Christianity was gradually withdrawing some
of all orders, even slaves, out of the vices, the
ignorance, the misery of that corrupted social sys-
tem. It was ever instilling feelings of humanity,
yet unknown or coldly commended by an impotent
philosophy, among men and women whose infant
ears had been habituated to the shrieks of dying
gladiators; it was givhig dignity to minds pros-
trated by years, almost centuries, of degrading
despotism; it was nurturing purity and modesty
of manners in an unspeakable state of depravation ;
it was enshrining the marriage-bed in a sanctity
long almost entirely lost, and rekindUng to a steady
warmth the domestic affections ; it was substituting
a simple, calm, and rational faith for the worn-out
superstitions of heathenism; gently establishing in
the soul of man the sense of immortality, till it
became a natural and inextinguishable part of
his moral being" (Milman's Latin Christianity,
i. 24).

The chief prophetic notices of the Roman Empire
are found in the Book of Daniel, especially iu ch.
xi. 30-40, and in ii. 40, vii. 7, 17-19, according to
the common interpretation of the "fourth king-
dom; " comp. 2 Esdr. xi. 1, but see Daniel. Ac-

2744 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

cordiug to some interpreters the Romans are in-
tended in Deut. xxviii. 49-57. For the mystical
notices of liome in the Revelation comp. Rome.

J. J. H.
* On the general subject of the preceding article,
see Merivale's History of the Roman Empire, espe-
cially vol. vi. H.

ROMANS, THE EPISTLE TO THE.

1. The date of this epistle is fixed with more ab-
solute certainty and within narrower limits, than
that of any other of St. Paul's epistles. The fol-
lowing considerations determine the time of writing.
First. Certain names in the salutations point to
Corinth, as the place from which the letter was
sent. (1.) Phcebe, a deaconess of Cenchreae, one
of the port towns of Corinth, is commended to the
Romans (xvi. 1, 2). (2.) Gains, in whose house
St. Paul Avas lodged at the time (xvi. 23), is prob-
ably the person mentioned as one of the chief
members of the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor. i. 14,
though the name was very common. (3.) Erastus,
here designated '♦ the treasurer of the city " {oIko-
vdfios, xvi. 23, E. V. "chamberlain") is elsewhere
mentioned in connection with Corinth (2 Tim. iv.
20; see also Acts xix. 22). Secondly. Having thus
determined the place of writing to be Corinth, we
have no hesitation in fixing upon the visit recorded
in Acts XX. 3, during the winter and spring fol-
lowing the Apostle's long residence at Ephesus, as
the occasion on which the epistle was written.
For St. Paul, when he wrote the letter, was on the
point of carrying the contributions of Macedonia
and Achaia to Jerusalem (xv. 25-27), and a com-
parison with Acts XX. 22, xxiv. 17, and also 1 Cor.
xvi. 4; 2 Cor. viii. 1, 2, ix. 1 fF., shows that he was
so engaged at this period of his life. (See Paley's
IJorce PauUnce, ch. ii. § 1.) Moreover, in this
epistle he declares his intention of visiting the
Romans after he has been at Jerusalem (xv. 23-
25), and that such was his design at this par-
ticular time appears from a casual notice in Acts
xix. 21.

The epistle then was written from Corinth during
St. Paul's third missionary journey, on the occa-
sion of the second of the two visits recorded in the
Acts. On this occasion he remained three months
in Greece (Acts xx. 3). When he left, the sea
was already navigable, for he was on the point of
sailing for Jerusalem when he was obliged to change
his plans. On the other hand, it cannot have been
late in the spring, because after passing through
Macedonia and visiting several places on the coast
of Asia Minor, he still hoped to reach Jerusalem
by Pentecost (xx. 16). It was therefore in the
winter or early spring of the year that the Epistle
to the Romans was written. According to the
most probable system of chronology, adopted by
Anger and VVieseler, this would be the year b. c.
58.

2. The Epistle to the Romans is thus placed in
chronobyical connection with the epistles to the
Galatians and Corinthians, which appear to have
been written within the twelve months preceding.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written
before St. Paul left Ephesus, the Second from
Macedonia when he was on his way to Corinth, and
the Epistle to the Galatians most probably either
in Macedonia or after his arrival at Corinth, i. e.
after the epistles to the Corinthians, though the
date of the Galatian Epistle is not absolutely cer-
tain. [Galatians, Epistle to the.] We shall
have to notice the relations existing between these

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

contemporaneous epistles hereafter. At present it
will be sufficient to say that they present a remark-
able resemblance to each other in style and matter
— a much greater resemblance than can be traced
to any other of St. Paul's epistles. They are at
once the most intense and most varied in feeling
and expression — if we may so say, the most Pau-
line of all St. Paul's epistles. When Baur excepts
these four epistles alone from his sweeping con-
demnation of the genuineness of all the letters
bearing St. Paul's name (Paulus, der Apostel) this
is a mere caricature of sober criticism ; but under-
lying this erroneous exaggeration is the fact, that
the epistles of this period — St. Paul's third mis-
sionary journey — have a character and an intensity
peculiarly their own, corresponding to the circum-
stances of the Apostle's outward and inward life at
the time when they were written. For the special
characteristics of this group of epistles, see a paper
on the Epistle to the Galatians in the Journal qf
Class, and Sacr. Phil., iii. p. 289.

3. The occasion which prompted this epistle,
and the circumstances attending its writing, were
as follows. St. Paul had long purposed visiting
Rome, and still retained this purpose, wishing also
to extend his journey to Spain (i. 9-13, xv. 22-29);
for the time, however, he was prevented from car-
rying out his design, as he was bound for Jeru-
salem with the alms of the Gentile Christians, and
meanwhile he addressed this letter to the Romans,
to supply the lack of his personal teaching. Phoebe,
a deaconess of the neighboring church of Cenchrece,
was on the point of starting for Rome (xvi. 1, 2),
and probably conveyed the letter. The body of the
epistle was written at the Apostle's dictation by
Tertius (xvi. 22) : but perhaps we may infer from
the abruptness of the final doxology, that it was
added by the Apostle himself, more especially as we
gather from other epistles that it was his practice
to conclude with a few striking words in his own
handwriting, to vouch for the authorship of the
letter, and frequently also to impress some important
truth more strongly on his readers.

4. The origin of the Roman Church is involved
in obscurity. If it had been founded by St. Peter,
according to a later tradition, the absence of any
allusion to him both in this epistle and in the
letters written by St. Paul from Rome would admit
of no explanation. It is equally clear that no
other Apostle was the founder. In this very epis-
tle, and in close connection with the mention of
his proposed visit to Rome, the Apostle declares
that it was his rule not to build on another man's
foundation (xv. 20), and we cannot suppose that
he violated it in this instance. Again, he speaks
of the Romans as especially falling to hLs share as
the Apostle of the Gentiles (i. 13), with an evident
reference to the partition of the field of labor be-
tween himself and St. Peter, mentioned in Gal. ii.
7-9. Moreover, when he declares his wish to im-
part some spiritual gift (xaptafia) to them, " that
they might be established" (i. 11), this implies
that they had not yet been visited by an Apostle,
and that St. Paul contemplated supplying the
defect, as was done by St. Peter and St. John in
the analogous case of the churches founded by
Phihp in Samaria (Acts viii. 14-17).

The statement in the Clementines (Horn. i. § 6)
that the first tidings of the Gospel reached Rome
during the lifetime of our Lord, is evidently a
fiction for the purposes of the romance. On the
other hand, it is clear that the foundation of this

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

church dates very far back. St. Paul in this
epistle salutes certain believers resident in Rome —
Andronicus and Juiiia (or Junianus?) — adding
that they were distinguished among the Apostles,
and that they were converted to Christ before him-
self (xvi. 7 ), for such seems to be the meaning of
the passage, rendered somewhat ambiguous by the
position of the relative pronouns. It may be that
some of those Romans, '-both Jews and proselytes,"
present on the day of Pentecost (ol iviSTfixovin-es
'Pwixalot, *lovdaioi re Kol irpo<r'f)\vTOi, Acts ii.
10), carried back the earliest tidings of the new
doctrine, or the Gospel may have first reached the
imperial city through those who were scattered
abroad to escape the persecution which followed on
the death of Stephen (Acts viii. 4, xi. 19). At
all events, a close and constant communication was
kept up between the Jewish residents in Rome and
their fellow-countrymen in Palestine by the exigen-
cies of commerce, in which they became more and
more engrossed, as their national hopes decHned,
and by the custom of repairing regularly to their
sacred festivals at Jerusalem. Again, the impe-
rial edicts alternately banishing and recalling the
Jews (compare e. </. in the case of Claudius,
Joseph. Ant. xix. 5, § 3, with Suet. Clatid. c. 25)
must have kept up a constant ebb and flow of
migration between Rome and the East, and the
case of Aquila and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 2; see
Paley, JJo7'. Paul. c. ii. § 2) probably represents a
numerous class through whose means the opinions
and doctrines promulgated in Palestine might reach
the metropolis. At first we may suppose that the
Gospel was preached there in a confused and im-
perfect form, scarcely more than a phase of Juda-
ism, as in the case of Apollos at Corinth (Acts
xviii. 25), or the disciples at Ephesus (Acts xix.
1-3). As time advanced and better instructed
teachers arrived, the clouds would gradually clear
away, till at length the presence of the great Apos-
tle himself at Rome disi^ersed the mists of Judaism
which still hung about the Roman Church. Ix)ng
after Christianity had taken up a position of direct
antagonism to Judaism in Rome, heathen states-
men and writers still persisted in confounding the
one with the other. (See Merivale, IILsi, of Jiome,
vi. 278, &c.)

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

There are certain passages which imply the
presence of a large number of Jewish converts to
Christianity. The use of the second person in ad-
dressing the Jews (cc. ii. and iii.) is clearly not
assumed merely for argumentative purposes, but
applies to a portion at^ least of those into whose
173

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 2T45

hands the letter would fall. The constant appeals
to the authority of " the Law " may in many cases
be accounted for by the Jewish education of the
Gentile believers (so Jowett, vol. ii. p. 22), but
sometimes they seem too direct and positive to ad-
mit of this explanation (iii. 19, vii. 1). In the
7th chapter St. Paul appears to be addressing Jew?,
as those who like himself had once been under the
dominion of the Law, but had been delivered from
it in Christ (see especially verses 4 and 6). And
when in xi. 13, he says '* I am speaking to you —
the Gentiles," this very limiting expression, "the
Gentiles," implies that the letter was addressed to
not a few to whom the term would not apply.

Again, if we analyze the list of names in the
16th chapter, and assume that this list approxi-
mately represents the proportion of Jew and Gen-
tile in the Roman Church (an assumption at least
not improbable), we arrive at the same result. It
is true that Mary, or rather Mariam (xvi. 6) is
the only strictly Jewish name. But this fact is
not worth the stress apparently laid on it by Mr.
Jowett (ii. p. 27). For Aquila and Priscilla (ver.
3) were Jews (Acts xviii. 2, 26), and the church
which met in their house was probably of the
same nation. Andronicus and Junia (or Junias?
ver. 7) are called St. Paul's kinsmen. The same
term is applied to Herodion (ver. 11). These per-
sons then must have been Jews, whether " kins-
men " is taken in the wider or the more restricted
sense. The name Apelles (ver. 10), though a
heathen name also, was most commonly borne by
Jews, as appears from Horace, Sat. I. v. 100. If
the Aristobulus of ver. 10 was one of the princes
of the Herodian house, as seems probable, we have
also in " the household of Aristobulus " several
Jewish converts. Altogether it appears that a very
large fraction of the Christian believers mentioned
in these salutations were Jews, even supposing that
the others, bearing Greek and Latin names, of
whom we know nothing, were heathens.

Nor does the existence of a large Jewish ele-
ment in the Roman Church present any difficulty.
The captives carried to Rome by Pompeius formed
the nucleus of the Jewish population in the metropo-
lis [Ro.me]. Since that time they had largely in-
creased. During the reign of Augustus we hear
of above 8,000 resident Jews attaching themselves
to a Jewish embassy which appealed to this emperor
(Joseph. Ant. xvii. 11, § 1). The same emperor
cave them a quarter beyond the I'iber, and allowed
them the free exercise of their religion (Philo, Leg.
ad Caiuin, p. 568 M.). About the time when St.
Paul wrote, Seneca, speaking of the influence of
Judaism, echoes the famous expression of Horace
{Ep. ii. 1, 156) respecting the Greeks — " victi vic-
toribus leges dederunt " (Seneca, in Augustin, de
Civ. Dei, vi. 11). And the bitter satire of Juvenal
and indignant complaints of Tacitus of the spread
of the infection through Roman society, are well
known.

On the other hand, situated in the metropolis of
the great empire of heathendom, the Roman Church
must necessarily have been in great measure a (jJen-
tile Church ; and the language of the epistle bears
out this supposition. It is professedly as the Apos-
tle of the Gentiles that St. Paul writes U) the Ro-
mans (i. 5). He hopes to have some fruit among
them, as he had among the other Gentiles (i. 13).
Later on in the epistle he speaks of the Jews in the
third person, as if addressing Gentiles, " I could
wish that myself were accursed for my brethren,

2746 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

my kinsnieu after the flesh, who are Israelites, etc."
(ix. 3, 4). And again, "my heart's desire and
prayer to God for them is that they might be
saved " (x. 1, the right reading is utrcp avTwv,
not vv€p rov 'Icrpa^A as in the Received Text).
Compare also xi. 23, 25, and especially xi. 30,
" For as ye in times past did not believe God, .
. . . so did these also (i. e. the Jews) now not
believe," etc. In all these passages St. Paul clearly
addresses himself to Gentile readers.

These Gentile converts, however, were not for
the most part native Komans. Strange as the
paradox appears, nothing is more certain than that
the Church of Rome was at this time a Greek and
not a I.atin Church. It is clearly established that
the early Latin versions of the New Testament were
made not for the use of Rome, but of the provinces,
especially Africa (Westcott, Canon, p. 269). All
the literature of the early Roman Church was
written in the Greek tongue. The names of the
bishops of Rome during the first two centuries are
with but few exceptions Greek. (See Milman,
Latin Christ, i. 27.) And in accordance with
tiiese facts we find that a very large proportion of
the names in the salutations of this epistle are
Greek names; while of the exceptions, Priscilla,
Aquila, and Junia (or Junias), were certainly Jews;
and the same is true of Rufus, if, as is not improb-
able, he is the same mentioned Mark xv. 21. Julia
was probably a dependent of the imperial house-
hold, and derived her name accordingly. The only
Roman names remaining are Amplias (i. e. Ampli-
atus) and Urbanus, of whom nothing is known,
but their names are of late growth, and certainly
do not point to an old Roman stock. It was there-
fore from the Greek population of Rome, pure or
mixed, that the Gentile portion of the Church was
almost entirely drawn. And this might be ex-
pected. The Greeks formed a very considerable
fraction of the whole people of Rome. They were
the most busy and adventurous, and also the most
intelligent of the middle and lower classes of society.
The influence which they were acquiring by their
numbers and versatility is a constant theme of re-
proach in the Roman philosopher and satirist (Juv.
iii. 60-80, vi. 184; Tac. de Orat. 29). They com-
plain that the national character is undermined,
that the whole city has become Greek. Speaking
the language of international intercourse, and
brought by their restless habits into contact with
foreign religions, the Greeks had larger opportuni-
ties than others of acquainting themselves with the
truths of the Gospel : while at the same time hold-
ing more loosely to traditional beliefs, and with
minds naturally more inquiring, they would be
more ready to welcome these truths when they
came in their way. At all events, for whatever
reason, the Gentile converts at Rome were Greeks,
not Romans: and it was an unfortunate conjecture
on the part of the transcriber of the Syriac Peshito,
that this letter was written " in the Latin tongue,"

(n'^MWl'n). Every line in the epistle bespeaks

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

When we inquire into the probable rank and
station of the Roman believers, an analysis of the
names in the list of salutations again gives an ap
proximate answer. These names belong for the
most part to the middle and lower grades of society
Many of them are found in the columbaria of the
freedmen and slaves of the early Roman emperors
(See Journal. of Class. andiSacr. Phil. iv. p. 57.)

It would be too much to assume that they were
the same persons, but at all events the identity of
names points to the same social rank. Among the
less wealthy merchants and tradesmen, among the
petty otticers of the army, among the slaves and
freedmen of the imperial palace — whetlier Jews or
Greeks — the Gospel would first find a firm footing.
To this last class allusion is made in Phil. iv. 22,
" they that are of Caesar's household." From these
it would gradually work upwards and downwards;
but we may be sure that in respect of rank the
Church of Rome was no exception to the general
rule, that " not many wise, not many mighty, not
many noble" were called (1 Cor. i. 26).

It seems probable from what has been said above,
that the Roman Church at this time was composed
of Jews and Gentiles in nearly equal portions.
This fact finds expression in the account, whether
true or false, which represents St. Peter and St.
Paul as presiding at the same time over the Church
at Rome (Dionys. Cor. ap. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25;
Iren. iii. 3). Possibly also the discrepancies in the
lists of the early bishops of Rome may find a solu-
tion (Pearson, Minor Theol. Works, ii. 449; Bun-
sen, Hippolytus, i. p. 44) in the joint Episcopate of
Linus and Cletus, the one ruling over the Jewish,
the other over the Gentile congregation of the me-
tropolis. If this conjecture be accepted, it is an
important testimony to the view here maintained,
though we cannot suppose that in St. Paul's time
the two elements of the Roman Church had dis-
tinct organizations.

6. The heterogeneous composition of this church
explains the general character of the Epistle to the
Romans, In an assemblage so various, we should
expect to find not the exclusive predominance of a
single form of eiTor, but the coincidence of dif-
ferent and opposing forms. The Gospel had here
to contend not specially with Judaism nor specially
with heathenism, but with both together. It was
therefore the business of the Christian Teacher to _ -
reconcile the opposing difficulties and to hold out fl I
a meeting point in the Gospel. This is exactly f |
what St. Paul does in the Epistle to the Romans,
and what from the circumstances of the case he was
well enabled to do. He was addressing a large
and varied community which had not been founded
by himself, and with which he had had no direct in-
tercourse. Again, it does not appear that the letter
was specially written to answer any doubts or set-
tle any controversies then rife in the Roman Church.
There were therefore no disturbing influences, such
as arise out of personal relations, or peculiar cir-
cumstances, to derange a general and systematic
exposition of the nature and working of the Gos-
pel. At the same time the vast importance of the
metropolitan Church, which could not have been
overlooked even by an uninspired teacher, naturally
pointed it out to the Apostle, as the fittest body to
whom to address such an exposition. Thus the
Epistle to the Romans is more of a treatise than of
a letter. If we remove the personal allusions in
the opening verses, and the salutations at the close,
it seems not more particularly addressed to the
Church of Rome, than to any other church of
Christendom. In this respect it differs widely
from the epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians,
with which as being written about the same time
it may most fairly be compared, and which are full
of personal and direct allusions. In one instance
alone we seem to trace a special reference to the
church of the metropoHs. The injunction of

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

obedience to temporal rulers (xiii. 1) would most
fitly be addressed to a congregation brought face
to face with the imperial government, and the
more so, as Rome had recently been the scene of
frequent disturbances, on the part of either Jews or
Christians, arising out of a feverish and restless an-
ticipation of Messiah's coming (Suet. Claud. 25).
Other apparent exceptions admit of a difierent ex-
planation.

7. This explanation is in fact to be sought in its
reUition to the contempwaneous epistles. The
letter to the Romans closes the group of epistles
written during the second missionary journey. This
group contains besides, as already mentioned, the
letters to the Corinthians and Galatians, written
probably within the few months preceding. At
Corinth, the capital of Achaia, and the stronghold
of heathendom, the Gospel would encounter its se-
verest struggle with Gentile vices and prejudices.
In Galatia, which either from natural sympathy or
from close contact seems to have been more ex-
posed to Jewish influence than any other church
within St. Paul's sphere of labor, it had a sharp
contest with Judaism. In the epistles to these
two churches we study the attitude of the Gospel
towards the Gentile and Jewish world respectively.
These letters are direct and special. They are
evoked by present emergencies, are directed against
actual evils, are full of personal applications. The
Epistle to the Romans is the summary of what he
had written before, the result of his dealing with
the two antagonistic forms of error, the gathering
together of the fragmentary teaching in the Co-
rinthian and Galatian letters. What is there im-
mediate, irregular, and of partial application, is
here arranged and completed, and thrown into a
general form. Thus on the one hand his treat-
ment of the Mosaic law points to the difficulties he
encountered in dealing with the Galatian Church,
while on the other his cautions against antinomian
excesses (Rom. vi. 15, &c.), and his precepts against
giving offense in the matter of meats and the ob-
servance of days (Hom. xiv.), remind us of the
errors which he had to correct in his Corinthian
converts. (Compare 1 Cor. vi. 12 ft*., and 1 Cor.
viii. 1 fF.) Those injunctions then which seem at
fii*st sight special, appear not to be directed against

*any actual known failings in the Roman Church,
but to be suggested by the possibility of those ir-
regularities occurring in Rome which he had al-
ready encountered elsewhere.

8. Viewing this epistle then rather in the light
of a treatise than of a letter, we are enabled to
explain certain phenomena in the text. In the
received text a doxology stands at the close of the
epistle (xvi. 25-27). The preponderance of evi-
dence is in favor of this position, but there is
respectable authority for placing it at the end of
ch. xiv. In some texts again it is found in both
places, while others omit it entirely. How can we
account for this? It has been thought by some to
discredit the genuineness of the doxology itself:
but there is no sufficient ground for this view. The
arguments against its genuineness on the ground
of style, advanced by Reiche, are met and refuted
by Fritzsche (Rom. vol. i. p. xxxv.). Baur goes
still further, and rejects the two last chapters ; but
such an inference falls without the range of sober
criticism. The phenomena of the MSS. seem best
explained by supposing that the letter was circu-
lated at an early date (whether during the Apostle's
lifetime or not it is idle to inquire) in two forms,

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 2747

both with and without the two last chapters. In
the shorter form it was divested as far as possible
of its epistolary character by abstracting the per-
sonal matter addressed especially to the Romans,
the doxology being retained at the close. A still
further attempt to strip this epistle of any special
references is found in MS. G, which omits 4i/ 'PdifiTj
(i. 7), and toI? iu 'Pdofiri (i. 15), for it is to be
observed at the same time that this MS. omits the
doxology entirely, and leaves a space after ch. xiv.
This view is somewhat confirmed by the parallel
case of the opening of the Ephesian Epistle, in
which there is very high authority for omitting
the words 4v 'Ecpfo-cpj and which bears strong
marks of having been intended for a circular
letter.

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

The epistle, from its general character, lends
itself more readily to an analysis than is often the
case with St. Paul's epistles. The body of the
letter consists of four portions, of which the first
and last relate to personal matters, the second is
ai^umentative and doctrinal, and the third practi-
cal and hortatory. The following is a table of its
contents : —

Salutation (i. 1-7). The Apostle at the outset
strikes the keynote of the epistles in the expres-
sions " called as an apostle," " called as saints."
Divine grace is everything, human merit nothing.

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

II. Doctrinal (i. IGtxI. 36).

The general pi'Ojxtsitioii. The Gospel is the
salvation of Jew and Gentile alike. This
salvation comes by faith (i. 16, 17).

The rest of this section is taken up in estab-
lishing this thesis, and drawing deductions
from it, or correcting misapprehensions.

(a.) All alike were under condemnation before
the Gospel:

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

1-8).
And the position itself established from
Scripture (iii. 9-20).

{b.) A mghteousness (justification) is revealed
imder the gospel, which being of faith, not
of law, is also universal (iii. 21-26).

And boasting is thereby excluded (iii. 27-31).

Of this justification by faith Abraham is an
example (iv. 1-25).

Thus then we are justified in Christ, in whom
alone we glory (v. 1-11).

And this acceptance in Christ ia as uni-

2748 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

versal as was the condemnation in Adam
(v. 12-19).
(c.) The vioi'cU consequences of our deliver-
ance.
The Law was given to multiply sin (v. 20,
21). When we died to the l>aw we died to
sin (vi. 1-14). The abolition of the Law,
however, is not a signal for moral license
(vi. 15-23). On the contrary, as the Law
has passed away, so must sin, for sin and
the I^w are correlative; at the same time
this is no disparagement of the Law, but
rather a proof of human weakness (vii.
1-25). So henceforth in Christ we are free
from sin, we have the Spirit and look for-
ward in hope, triumphing over our present
afflictions (viii. 1-39).
(d.) The rejection of the Jews is a matter of
deep sorrow (ix. 1-5).
Yet we must remember —
(i.) That the promise was not to the whole
people, but only to a select seed (ix. 6-13).
And the absolute purpose of God in so
ordaining is not to be canvassed by
man (ix. 14-19).
(ii.) That the Jews did not seek justification
aright, and so missed it. This justifica-
tion was promised by Jhith, and is
offered to all alike, the preaching to the
Gentiles being implied therein. The
character and results of the Gospel dis-
pensation are foreshadowed in Scripture
(X. 1-21).
(iii. ) That the rejection of the Jews is not
final. This rejection has been the means
of gathering in the Gentiles, and through
the Gentiles they themselves will ulti-
mately be brought to Christ (xi. 1-36).
in. Practical exhortations (xii. 1-xv. 13).
(a.) To holiness of life and to charity in gen-
eral, the duty of obedience to rulers being
inculcated by the way (xii. 1-xiii. 14).
(/>».) And more particularly against giving
offense to weaker brethren (xiv. 1-xv. 13).
IV. Personal matters.

(rt.) The Apostle's motive in writing the
letter, and his intention of visiting the
Komans (xv. 14-33).
(6.) Greetings (xvi. l-r23).
The letter ends with a benediction and doxology

(xvi. 24-27).
While this epistle contains the fullest and most
eyst^matic exposition of the Apostle's teaching, it
is at the same time a very striking expression of
his character. Nowhere do his earnest and affec-
tionate nature, and his tact and delicacy in hand-
ling unwelcome topics appear more strongly than
when he is dealing with the rejection of his fellow-
countrymen the Jews.

The reader may be referred especially to the
introductions of Olshausen, Tholuck, and Jowett,
for suggestive remarks relating to the scope and
purport of the Epistle to the Komans.

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

The reference to Rom. ii. 4 in 2 Pet. iii. 15 is

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

indeed more than doubtful. In the Epistle of St
James again (ii. 14), there is an allusion to per-
versions of St. Paul's language and doctrine which
has several points of contact with the Epistle to
the Romans, but this may perhaps be explained
by the oral rather than the written teaching of
the Ajwstle, as the dates seem to require. It is
not the practice of the Apostolic fathers to cite the
N. T. writers by name, but marked passages from
the Romans are found embedded in the epistles of
Clement and Polycarp (Rom. i. 29-32 in Clem.
Coi\ c. XXXV., and Rom. xiv. 10, 12, in Polyc.
Phil. c. vi.). It seems also to have been directly
cited by the elder quoted in Irenaeus (iv. 27, 2,
"ideo Paulum dixisse; " cf. Rom. xi. 21, 17), and
is alluded to by the writer of the Epistle to Diog-
netus (c. ix., cf. Rom. iii. 21 foil., v. 20), and by
Justin Martyr {Dial. c. 23, cf. Rom. iv. 10, 11,
and in other passages). The title of Melito's trea-
tise. On the Hearing of Faith, seems to be an allu-
sion to this epistle (see however Gal. iii. 2, 3). It
has a place moreover in the Muratorian Canon and
in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions. Nor have
we the testimony of orthodox writers alone. The
epistle was commonly quoted as an authority by
the heretics of the sub-apostolic age, by the Opliites
(Hippol. adv. Hmr. p. 99, cf. Rom. i. 20-26), by
Basilides (ib. p. 238, cf. Rom. viii. 19, 22, and v.
13, 14), by Valentinus {ib. p. 195, cf. Rom. viii.
11), by the Valentinians Heracleon and Ptolemseus
(Westcott, On the Canon, pp. 335, 340), and per-
haps also by Tatian ( Orat. c. iv., cf. Rom. i. 20),
besides being included in Marcion's Canon. In
the latter part of the second century the evidence
in its favor is still fuller. It is obviously alluded
to in the letter of the churches of Vienne and
Lyons (Euseb. H. E. v. 1, cf. Rom. viii. 18), and
by Athenagoras (p. 13, cf. Rom. xii. 1 ; p. 37, cf.
Rom. i. 24) and Theophilus of Antioch {Ad Autol.
p. 79, cf. Rom. ii. 6 foil.; p. 126, cf. Rom. xiii. 7,
8); and is quoted frequently and by name by
Irenseus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria (see
Kirchhofer, Quellen, p. 198, and esp. Westcott,
On the Canon, passim).

11. The Commentaries on this epistle are very
numerous, as might be expected from its impor-
tance. Of the many patristic expositions only a few
are now extant. The work of Origen is preserved
entire only in a loose Latin translation of Rufinus
{Oiig. ed. de la Rue, iv. 458), but some fragments
of the original are found in the Philocalia, and
more in Cramer's Catena. The commentary on
St. Paul's epistles printed among the works of St.
Ambrose (ed. Ben. ii. Appx. p. 21), and hence
bearing the name Ambrosiaster, is probably to be
attributed to Hilary the deacon. Besides these
are the expositions of St. Paul's epistles by Chry-
sostom (ed. Montf. ix. p. 425, edited separately by
Field), by Pelagius (printed among Jerome's
works, ed. Vallarsi, xi. Pt. 3, p. 135), by Prima-
sius {Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. vi. Pt. 2, p. 30), and
by Theodoret (ed. Schuize, iii. p. 1). Augustine
commenced a work, but broke off at i. 4: it
bears the name Inchoaia Expositio Epistolce ad
Rom. (ed. Ben. iii. p. 925). Later he wrote Ex-
]X)sitio quamndam Propositionum Ejnstolce ad
Eot7i., also extant (ed. Ben. iii. p. 903). To these
should be added the later Catena of QLcumenius
(10th cent.) and the notes of Theophylact (11th
cent.), the former containing valuable extracts
from Photius. Portions of a commentary of Cyril
of Alexandria were published by Mai {Nov. Patr.

f^atr. mi

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE

Bibl. iii. p. 1). The Catena edited by Cramer
(1844) comprises two collections of Variorum notes,
the one extending from i. 1 to ix. 1, the other from
vii. 7, to the end. Besides passages from extant
commentaries, they contain important extracts from
Apollinarius, Theodorns of Mopsuestia [ed. Fritz-
sche, 1847; Migne, Patrol. Gr. Ixvi.], Severianus,
Gennadiiis, Photius, and others. There are also the
Greek Scholia, edited by Matthai, in his large Greek
Test. (Riga, 1782), from Moscow MSS. The com-
mentary of Euthymius Zigabenus (Tholuck, Kinl.
§ 6) exists in MS., but has never been printed.

Of the later commentaries we can only mention
a few of the most important. The dogmatic value
of this epistle naturally attracted the early re-
formers. Melancthon wrote several expositions of it
(Walch, Bibl. T/ieol. iv. 679). The Commentary
of Calvin on the Romans is considered the ablest
part of his able work. Among Koman Catholic
writers, the older works of Pitius and Corn, a
Lapide deserve to be mentioned. Of foreign an-
notators of a more recent date, besides the general
commentaries of Bengel, Olshausen, De Wette, and
Meyer (3d ed. 1859 [4th ed. 18(15] ), which are highly
valuable aids to the study of this epistle, we may
single out the special works of Kiickert (2d ed. 1839),
Reiche (1834), Fritzsche (1836-43), and Tholuck
(5th ed. 1856). An elaborate commentary has
also been published lately by Van Hengel. Among
English writers, besides the editions of the whole
of the New Testament by Alford (4th ed. 1861)
and Wordsworth (new ed. 1861), the most impor-
tant annotations on the Epistle to the Romans are
those of Stuart (6th ed. 1857), Jowett (2d ed.
1859), and Vaughan (2d ed. 1861). Further in-
formation on the subject of the literature of the
Epistle to the Romans may be found in the intro-
ductions of Reiche and Tholuck. J. B. L.

* Recent Literature. — On the composition of
the Roman Church and the aim of the epistle
valuable essays have been lately published by W.
Mangold, Der Romerhrief u. die Anfdnge d. rom.
Gemeinde, Marb. 1866, and W. Beyschlag, Das
geschichtlic/ie Problem des Rbnievbriefs, in the
Theol. Stnd. u. Krit., 1867, pp. 627-665; comp.
Hilgenfeld, Die Paulvs-Briefe u. ihre neuesfen
Bearbtitungen, in his Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.
1866, ix. 29:5-316, 337-367. Renan {Saint Paul,
Paris, 1869, pp. Ixiii.-lxxv.) supposes the Epistle
to the Romans to have been a circular letter, of
which there were four copies with distinct endings
(sent to the churches at Rome, Ephesus, Thessa-
lonica, and some unknown church), the body of the
letter remaining the same. The details of his
theory and the arguments for it cannot be given
here. It is fully discussed by Prof. Lightfoot (the
author of the preceding article) in the Journal of
Phihhgy, 1869, vol. ii. pp. 264-295. His own
hypothesis is, that the epistle as originally written
was without the benediction xvi. 24 (omitted by
Lachm., Tisch., and Tn^elles as wanting in the best
MSS.) and the doxology (xvi. 25-27). " At some
later period of his life .... it occurred to
the Apostle to give to this letter a wider circula-
tion. To this end he made two changes in it: he
obliterated all mention of Rome in the opening
paragraphs by slight alterations [substituting tV
a707rT; 06oC for ^v 'Pdofiri in i. 5, and omitting 4t/
'Pii/jiri in i. 17 — for the traces of this in MSS.,
etc., see Tisch.] ; and he cut off the two last chap-
ters containing personal matters, adding at the
same time a doxology [xvi. 25-27] as a termina-

ROME 2749

tion to the whole." This it will be perceived is a
modification of the view presented in § 8 of the
article above.

Among the more recent Commentaries, we may
notice Umbreit, -Der Brief an die Romer, auf d.
Grunde des A. T. ausgelegt, Gotha, 1856 ; Ewald,
Die Sendschreiben des Ap. Pauliis iibers. u. er-
kldrt, Gott 1857 ; John Brown (" Prof, of Exeget.
Theol. to the United Presbyterian Church"), Anor-
lytical Exposition of the Ep. to the Romans, Edin.,
also N. Y., 1857; John Forbes, Analyt. Comm. on
the Ep. to the Romans, tracing the train of Thought
by the aid of Parallelism, Edin. 1868; J. P. Lange,
Der Brief Pauli an die Romer, 2e Aufl. 1868
(Theil vi. of his Bibelwerk), greatly enlarged and
enriched by Dr. Schatf and the Rev. M. B. Riddle,
in the Amer. translation, N. Y. 1869 (vol. v. of
lunge's Comm.); and J. C. K. von Hofmann, Der
Brief Pauli an die Romer, Nordlingen, 1868
(Theil iii. of his Die heil. Schrift d. N. T. zusam-
menhdngend untersucht). Of the commentaries
mentioned by Lightfoot, that of Fritzsche is par-
ticularly distinguished for its philological thorough-
ness.

Of American commentaries, we may further
name those of Dr. Charles Hodge (Old School
Presbyterian), Philad. 1835, new ed., revised and
greatly enlarged, 1864; S. H. Turner (Episco-
paUan), N. Y. 1853; and the more popular Notes
of Albert Barnes (New School Presb.), H. J. Rip-
ley (Baptist), A. A. Livermore (Unitarian), and L.
R. Paige (Universalist).

On the theology of this epistle and the doctrine
of Paul in general, in addition to the works re-
ferred to under the art. Paul, vol. iii. p. 2397, one
may consult the recent volume of Weiss, Lehrb.
d. Bibl. Theol. d. N. T., Berl. 1868, pp. 216-507.
Rom. V. 12-19 is discussed by Prof. Timothy Dwight
in the New Englander for July, 1868, with partic-
ular reference to the Commentary of Dr. Hodge.

For a fuller view of the very extensive literature
relating to the epistle, see the American translation
of Lange's Commentary as above referred to, p.
48 ff. ; comp. p. 27 ff., 37, and for special mono-
graphs, the body of the Commentary on the more
important passages. The older literature is de-
tailed in the well-known bibliographical works of
Walch, Winer, Danz, and Darling. A.

ROME ('PcijUTj, Ethn. and Adj. 'Pco^aTos, 'Pw-
fiaiK6s in the phrase ypafx/xara 'Pw/naiKdi Luke
xxiii. 38), the famous capital of the ancient world,
is situated on the Tiber at a distance of about 15
miles from its mouth. The " seven hills " (Rev. xviL
9) which formed the nucleus of the ancient city
stand on the left bank. On the opposite side of the
river rises the far higher ridge of the Janiculum.
Here from very early times was a fortress with a
suburb beneath it extending to the river. Modern
Rome lies to the N. of the ancient city, covering
with its principal portion the plain to the N. of the
seven hills, once known as the Campus Martins,
and on the opposite bank extending over the low
ground beneath the Vatican to the N. of the
ancient Janiculum. A full account of the history
and topography of the city is given elsewhere
(Diet, of Gr. and Rom. Geogr. ii. 719). Here it
will be considered only in its relation to Bible his-
tory.

Rome is not mentioned in the Bible except in
the books of Maccabees and in three books of the
N. T., namely, the Acts, the Epistle to the Ro-
mans, and the 2d Epistle to Timothy. For the

2750

ROME

notices of Rome in the books of Maccabees see Ro-
man Empike.

The conquests of Pompey seem to have given
rise to the first settlement of Jews at Rome. The
Jewish king Aristobulus and his son formed part
of Pompey's triumph, and many Jewish captives
and emigrants were brought to Rome at that time,
A special district was assigned to them, not on the
«ite of the modern " Ghetto," between the Capitol
and the island of the Tiber, but across the Tiber
(Philo, Leg. ad Caium, ii, 568, ed. Mangey).
Many of these Jews were made freedmen (Philo,
/. c). Julius Ctesar showed them some kindness
(Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10, § 8; Suet. Ccesar, 84).
They were favored also by Augustus, and by Tibe-
rius during the latter part of his reign (Philo, I.
C). At an earlier period apparently he banished
a great number of them to Sardinia (Joseph. Ant.
xviii. 3, § 5; Suet. Tib. 36). Claudius "com-
manded all Jews to depart from Rome " (Acts
xviii. 2), on account of tumults connected, pos-
sibly, with the preaching of Christianity at Rome
(Suet. Claud. 25, "Judaeos impulsore Chresto
assidue tumultuantes Roma expuht "). This ban-
bhment cannot have been of long duration, for
we find Jews residing at Rome apparently in con-
siderable numbers at the time of St. Paul's visit
(Acts xxviii. 17). It is chiefly in connection with
St. Paul's history that Rome conies before us in
the Bible.

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

1. The city at that time must be imagined as a
large and irregular mass of buildings unprotected
by an outer wall. It had long outgrown the old
Servian wall (Dionys. Hal. Ant. Mom. iv. 13; ap.
Merivale, Rom. Hist. iv. 497); but the Umits of
the suburbs cannot be exactly defined. Neither
the nature of the buildings nor the configuration
of the ground were such as to give a striking ap-
pearance to the city viewed from without. " An-
cient Rome had neither cup<;la nor campanile "
(Conybeare and Howson, Life of St. Paul, ii. 371 ;
Merivale, Eoin. Emp. iv. 512), and the hills, never
lofty or imposing, would present, when covered with
the buildings and streets of a huge city, a confused
appearance like the hills of modern London, to
which they have sometimes been compared. The
visit of St. Paul lies between two famous epochs in
the history of the city, namely, its restoration by
Augustus and its restoration by Nero (C. and H.
L 13). The boast of Augustus is well known,
"that he had found the city of brick and left it of
marble" (Suet. Aug. 28). For the improvements
effected by him, see Diet, of Gr. and Rom. Geogr.
ii. 740, and Niebuhr's Lectures on Rom. Hist. ii.
177. Some parts of the city, especially the Forum
and Campus Martins, must now have presented a
mj^nificent appearance, but many of the principal
buildings which attract the attention of modem
travellers in ancient Rome were not yet built. The
streets were generally narrow and winding, flanked
by densely crowded lodging-houses (insulae) of enor-
mous height. Augustus found it necessary to
limit their height to 70 feet (Strab. v. 235). St.
Paul's first visit to Rome took place before the
Neronian conflagration, but even after the restora-
tion of the city, which followed upon that event,
many of the old evils continued (Tac. Hist. iii. 71 ;

ROME

Juv. Sat. iii. 193, 269). The population of the
city has been variously estimated : at half a mil-
lion (by Dureau de la Malle, i. 403, and Merivale,
Rom. Empire, iv. 525), at two millions and up-
wards (Hoeck, Rdmische Gesckichte, i. ii. 131; C.
and H. Life of St. Paul, ii. 376; J>ict. of Geogr.
ii. 746), even at eight milhons (Lipsius, De Mag-
nittidine Rom., quoted in Diet, of Geogr.). Prob-
ably Gibbon's estimate of one million two hundred
thousand is nearest to the truth (Milman's note on
Gibbon, ch. xxxi. vol. iii. p. 120). One half of
the population consisted, in all probability, of
slaves. The larger part of the remainder consisted
of pauper citizens supported in idleness by the mis-
erable system of public gratuities. There appears
to have been no middle class and no free industrial
population. Side by side with the wretched classes
just mentioned was the comparatively small body
of the wealthy nobility, of whose luxury and profli-
gacy we hear so much in the heathen writers of the
time. (See for calculations and proofs the works
cited.)

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

2. The localities in and about Rome especially
connected with the life of St. Paul are — (1.) The
Appian Way, by which he approached Rome (Acts
xxviii. 15). (See Appii Forum, and Diet, of
Geogr. "Via Appia.") (2.) "The palace," or
" Caesar's court " {rh irpandipiov, Phil. i. 13).
This may mean either the great camp of the Prae-
torian guards which Tiberius established outside
the walls on the N. E. of the city (Tac. Ann. iv. 2;
Suet. Tib. 37 ), or, as seems more probable, a bar-
rack attached to the Imperial residence on the Pal-
atine (Wieseler, as quoted by C. and H., Life of
St. Paul, ii. 423). There is no sufficient proof
that the word " Praetorium " was ever used to des-
ignate the emperor's palace, though it is used for
the official residence of a Roman governor (John
xviii. 28; Acts xxiii. 35). The mention of "Cae-
sar's household" (Phil. iv. 22), confirms the
notion that St. Paul's residence was in the im-
mediate neighborhood of the emperor's house
on the Palatine. [Judgment-Hall ; Pr.eto-

KIUM.]

3. The connection of other localities at Rome
with St. Paul's name rests only on traditions of
more or less probability. We may mention espe-
cially — (1.) The Mamertine prison or Tullianum,
built by Ancus Martins near the forum (Liv. i. 33),

ROME

described by Sallust {Cat. 55). It still exists be-
neath the church of S. Giuseppe dei Faleynami.
Here it is said that St. Peter and St. Paul were
fellow-prisoners for nine months. This is not the
place to discuss the question whether St. Peter was
ever at Rome. It may be sufficient to state, that
though there is no evidence of such a visit in the
N. T., unless Babylon in 1 Pet. v. 13 is a mystical
name for Rome, yet early testimony (Dionysius, ap.
Euseb. ii. 25 ), and the universal belief of the early
Church seem sufficient to establish the fact of his
having suHered martyrdom there. [Pktkr, vol. iii.
p. 245-4.] The story, however, of the imprison-
ment in the Maniertine prison seems inconsistent
with 2 Tim., especially iv. 11. (2.) The chapel on
the Ostian road which marks the spot where the
two Apostles are said to have separated on their
way to martyrdom. (3.) The supposed scene of
St. Paul's martyrdom, namely, the church of St,
Paolo alle ire fontane on the Ostian road. (See
the notice of the Ostian road in Caius, ap. Eus. //.
E. ii. 25.) To these may be added (4.) The sup-
posed scene of St. Peter's martyrdom, namely, the
church of St. Pietro in Montorio, on the Janicu-
lum. (5.) The chapel " Domine quo Vadls," on
the Appian road, the scene of the beautiful legend
of our Lord's appearance to St. Peter as he was
escaping from martyrdom (Ambrose, A/>. 33). (6.)
The places where the bodies of the two Apostles,
after having been deposited first in the catacombs
(icoi/iTjTrjpta) (Eus. //. E. ii. 25), are supposed to
have been finally buried — that of St. Paul by the
Ostian road ; that of St. Peter beneath the dome
of the famous Basilica which bears his name (see
Caius, ap. Eus. //. E. ii. 25). All these and many
other traditions will be found in the Annals of
Baronius, under the last year of Nero. " Value-
less as may be the historical testimony of each of
these traditions singly, yet collectively they are of
some importance as expressing the consciousness
of the third and fourth centuries, that there had
been an early contest, or at least contrast, be-
tween the two Apostles, which in the end was
completely reconciled; and it is this feeling
which gives a real interest to the outward forms
in which it is brought before us, more or less
indeed in all the south of Europe, but especially
in Kome itself" (Stanley's Sermons and Essays,
p. 101).

4. We must add, as sites unquestionably con-
nected with the Roman Christians of the Apostolic
age — (1.) The gardens of Nero in the Vatican, not
far from the spot where St. Peter's now stands.
Here Christians wrapped in the skins of beasts
were torn to pieces by dogs, or, clothed in inflam-
mable robes, were burnt to serve as torches during
the midnight games. Others were crucified (Tac.
Ann. XV. 44). (2.) The Catacombs. These sub-
terranean galleries, commonly from 8 to 30 feet in
height, and from 4 to 6 in width, and extending
for miles, especially in the neighborhood of the old
Appian and Nomentan ways, were unquestionably
used as places of refuge, of worship, and of burial
by the early Christians. It is impossible here to
enter upon the difficult question of their origin,

ROOM

2751

a 1. 'Akti (Matt. ii. 22).

2. XwpeZf (Mark ii. 2).

3. Tdn-o? (Luke ii. 7, xiv. 22 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 16).

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

be printed in italics).
6. AidSo\o^ (t. e. a successor. Acts xxiv. 27).

and their possible connection with the deep sand-
pits and subterranean works at Rome mentioned
by classical writers. See the story of the murder
of Asinius (Cic. pro Cluent. 13), and the account^'
of the concealment offered to Nero before his
death (Suet. Nero, 48). A more complete ac-
count of the catacombs than any yet given, may
be expected in the forthcoming work of the Cav-
aliere G. B. de Rossi. Some very interesting no-
tices of this work, and descriptions of the Roman
catacombs are given in Burgon's Letters from
Rome, pp. 120-258. " De Rossi finds his earliest
dated inscription A. D. 71. From that date to A. D.
300 there are not known to exist so many as thirty
Christian inscriptions bearing dates. Of undated
inscriptions, however, about 4,000 are referable to
the period antecedent to the emperor Constantine "
(Burgon, p. 148). [See De Rossi's Jnscriptiones
C/iiist. Urbis Eomce, Vol. I. Rom. 1861, fol.]

Nothing is known of the first founder of the
Christian Church at Rome. Christianity may,
perhaps, have been introduced into the city not
long after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on
the day of Pentecost, by the " strangers of Rome,"
who were then at Jerusalem (Acts ii. 10). It iaf
clear that there were many Christians at Rome be-
fore St. Paul visited the city (Rom. i. 8, 13, 15,,
XV. 20). The names of twenty-four Christians at
Rome are given in the salutations at the end of the
Epistle to the Romans. For the difficult question
whether the Roman Church consisted mainly of
Jews or Gentiles, see C. and H., Li/e of St. Pattl,
ii. 157; Alford's Proleg.; and especially Prof.
Jowett's Epistles of St. Paul to the Ro7nans, Ga~
I'ltians, and Thessalonians, ii. 7-26. The view
there adopted, that they were a Gentile Church but
Jewish converts, seems most in harmony with such
passages as ch. i. 5, 13, xi. 13, and with the gen-
eral tone of the epistle.

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

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

For a good account of Rome at the time of St.
Paul's visit, see Conybeare and Howson's Life of
St. Paul, ch. xxiv., of which free use has been
made for the sketch of the city given in this ar-
ticle. J. J. H.

ROOF. [Daberath, Amer. ed. ; House.]

ROOM. This word is employed in the A. V.
of the New Testament as the equivalent of no less
than eight distinct Greek « terms. The only one
of these, however, which need be noticed here ia
irpuTOKXia-ia (Matt, xxiii. 6; Mark xii. 39; Luke
xiv. 7, 8, XX. 46), which signifies, not a "room " irit
the sense we commonly attach to it of a chamber,
but the highest place on the highest couch round
the dinner or supper-table — the "uppermost seat,"
as it is more accurately rendered in Luke xi. 43.
[Meals.] The word " seat " is, however, generally

6. npa>TOKA.i<n'a (chief, highest, uppermost room.

See above).

7. 'Avayaioi/ (an upper room, Mark xir. 15 ; Luke

xxii. 12).

8. To vTTepwov (the upper room, Acta i. 13).

2752

ROSE

ROSH

Impropriated by our translatora to KadfSpa, which
seems to mean some kind of official chair. In Luke
xiv. 9, 10, they have rendered T^Tros by both
•' place " and " room."

The Upper Room of the Last Supper is noticed
under its own head. [See Housk, vol. ii. p. 1105.]

ROSE (nb?^5D» chabatstseleih : Kpivou,
ivdos; Aq. «aAu|: flos, lUium) occurs twice only,
namely, in Cant. ii. 1, " I am the Rose of Sharon,"
and in Is. xxxv. 1, "the desert shall rejoice and
blossom as the rose^ There is much difference
of opinion as to what particular flower is here
denoted. Tremellius and Diodati, with some of
the Rabbins, believe the rose is intended, but there
seems to be no foundation for such a translation.
Celsius (Flierob. i. 488) has argued in favor of the
Narcissus (Polynnthtis narcissus). This rendering
is supported by the Targum on Cant. ii. 1, where

Chabatstseleih is explained by narkos (DIp^D).
This word, says Royle (Kitto's Cyc. art. " Cha-
bazzeleth "), is "the same as the Persian nargm,

the Arabic /ua^*-^, which throughout the East

indicates Narcissus Tazetta, or the polyanthus
narcissus." Gesenius (Thes. s. v.) has no doubt
that the plant denoted is the " autumn crocus "
{Colchicum autumnale). It is well worthy of re-
mark that the Syriac translator of Is. xxxv. 1
explains chabatstseleih by chamtsalyotho^'^ which is
evidently the same word, m and h being inter-
changed. This Syriac word, according to Michaelis
{Stippl, p. 659), Gesenius, and Rosenmiiller (Bib.
Bot. p. 142), denotes the Colchicum autumnale.
The Hebrew word points etymologically to some
bulbous plant ; it appears to us more probable that
the narcissus is intended than the crocus, the
former plant being long celebrated for its fragrance,
while the other has no odorous qualities to recom-
mend it. Again, as the chabatstseleih is associated
with the lily in Cant. I. c, it seems probable that
Solomon is speaking of two plants which blossomed
about the same time. The narcissus and the lily
{LUium candidum) would be in blossom together
in the early spring, while the Colchicinti is an
autumn plant. Thomson {Land and Book, pp.
112, 513) suggests the possibility of the Hebrew
name being identical with the Arabic Khubbaizy

(S'yUL^ or /^\Ll^), "the mallow," which

plant he saw growing abundantly on Sharon ; but
this view can hardly be maintained : the Hebrew
term is probably a quadriliteral noun, with the
harsh aspirate prefixed, and the prominent notion
implied in it is betsel, "a bulb," and has therefore
no connection with the above-named Arabic word.
Chateaubriand (Itineraii-e, ii. 130) mentions the
narcissus as growing in the plain of Sharon ; and
Strand {Fbr. Paloest. No. 177) names it as a plant
of Palestine, on the authority of Rauwolf and
Hasselquist; see also Kitto's Phys. Hist, of Palest.
p. 216. Hiller {Hierophyt. ii. 30) thinks the cha-
batstseleth denotes some species of asphodel {Aspho-

us Of

delus); but the finger-like roots of this genus
plants do not well accord with the " bulb " root
implied in the original word.

Though the rose is apparently not mentioned in
the Hebrew Bible, it is referred to in Ecclus. xxiv.
14, where it is said of Wisdom that she is exalted
"as a rose-plant (wy (pura ^6dov) in Jericho"
(comp. also ch. 1. 8; xxxix. 13; Wisd. ii. 8).*"
Roses are greatly prized in the East, more espe-
cially for the sake of the rose-water, which is in
much request (see Hasselquist, Trav. p. 248). Dr.
Hooker observed the following wild roses in Syria :
Rosa eglanteria (L.), R. sempeiinrens (L.), R.
Henkeliana, R. Phoenicia (Boiss), R. seriacea, R.
angusiifolia, and R. Libanotica. Some of these
are doubtful species. R. centifolia and damascena
are cultivated everywhere. The so-called " Rose
of Jericho "is no rose at all, but the Anastatica
Hierochuntina, a cruciferous plant, not uncommon
on sandy soil in Palestine and Egypt. W. H.

ROSH (tt7^"1 [head]: 'Pciis: Ros). In the
genealogy of Gen. xlvi. 21, Rosh is reckoned among
the sons of Benjamin, but the name does not occur
elsewhere, and it is extremely probable that " Ehi
and Rosh" is a corruption of " Ahiram " (comp.
Num. xxvi. 38). See 13urrington'8 Genealogies^ i.
281.

ROSH (tt7W"l : 'p^iy, Ez. xxxviii. 2, 3, xxxix.
1 : translated by the Vulg. capitis, and by the A.
V. "chief," as if ti?S*"), "head"). The whole
sentence thus rendered by the A. V. " Magog the
chief prince of Meshech and Tubal," ought to run
" Magog the prince of Rosh, Mesech, and Tubal; "

the word translated " prince " being W^tTS, the
term usually employed for the head of a nomad
tribe, as of Abraham (in Gen. xxiii. 6), of the
Arabians (Gen. xvii. 20), and of the chiefs of the
several Israelite tribes (Num. vii. 11, xxxiv. 18), or
in a general sense (1 K. xi. 34 ; Ez. xii. 10, xlv. 7,
xlvi. 2). The meaning is that Magog is the head
of the three great Scythian tribes, of which " Rosh "
is thus the first. Gesenius considers it beyond
doubt that by Rosh, or 'Pcos, is intended the tribe
on the north of the Taurus, so called from their
neighborhood to the Rha, or Volga, and that in
this name and tribe we have the first trace of the
Russ or Russian nation. Von Hammer identifies
this name with Rass in the Koran (xxv. 40; 1. 12),
" the peoples Aad, Thamud, and the Asshabir (or
inhabitants) of Rass or Ross." He considers that
Mohammed had actually the passage of Ezekiel in
view, and that "Asshabir" corresponds to Nasi^
the "prince" of the A. V., and ip^ovTa of the
LXX. {Sur les Ongines Russes, Petersburg, 1825,
pp. 24-29). The first certain mention of the Rus-
sians under this name is in a Latin Chronicle under
the year A. d. 839, quoted by Bayer (Origines
Russicce, Comment. Acad. Petrqpol. 172G, p. 409).
From the junction of Tiras with Meshech and
Tubal in Gen. x. 2, Von Hammer conjectures the
identity of Tiras and Rosh (p. 26).

The name probably occurs again under the
altered form of Rasses, in Judith ii. 23 — this time

JV::^^.

6 * " From the locality of Jericho," says Mr. Tris-
tram, " and the situation by the waters, this rose is
most probably the Oleander, the Rhododendron, or
tree-rose of the Greeks, one of the most beautiful and

attractive plants of Palestine, which abounds in all
the warmer parts of the country by the side of pools
and streams, and flourishes especially at Jericho, where
I have not seen our rose " {Nat. Hist, of the Bible,
p. 477). H.

ROSIN

in the ancient Latin, and possibly also in the
Syriac versions, in connection with Thiras or Thars.
But the passage is too corrupt to admit of any
certain deduction from it. [Rasses.]

This early Biblical notice of so great an empire
is doubly interesting from its being a solitary
instance. No other name of any modern nation
occurs in the Scriptures, and the obliteration of it
by the A. V. is one of the many remarkable varia-
tions of our version from the meaning of the sacred
text of the Old Testament. For all further in-
formation see the above-quoted treatises of Von
Hammer and Bayer. A. P. S.

ROSIN. Properly "naphtha," as it is both
in the LXX. and Vulg. (udipda, naphtha), as well
as the Peshito-Syriac. In tlie Song of the Three
Children (23), the servants of the king of Babylon
are said to have •' ceased not to make the oven hot
with rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood." Pliny
(ii. 101) mentions naphtha as a product of Baby-
lonia, similar in appearance to liquid bitumen, and
having a remarkable affinity to fire. To this
natural product (known also as Persian naphtha,
petroleum, rock oil, Rangoon tar, Burmese naph-
tha, etc.) reference is made in the passage in ques-
tion. Sir R. K. Porter thus describes the naphtha
springs at Kirkook in Lower Courdistan, mentioned
by Strabo (xvii. 738): "They are ten in number.
For a considerable distance from them we felt the
air sulphurous; but in drawing near it became
worse, atid we were all instantly struck with ex-
cruciating headaches. The springs consist of sev-
eral pits or wells, seven or eight feet in diameter,
and ten or twelve deep. The whole number are
within the compass of five hundred yards. A
flight of steps has been cut into each pit for the
purpose of approaching the fluid, which rises and
falls according to the dryness or moisture of the
weather. The natives lave it out with ladles into
bags made of skins, which are carried on the backs
of asses to Kirkook, or to any other mart for its
sale The Kirkook naphtha is prin-
cipally consun)ed by the markets in the southwest
of Courdistan, while the pits not far from Kufri
supply Bagdad and its environs. Tbe Bagdad
naphtha is black " ( Trav. ii. 440). It is described
by Dioscorides (i. 101) as the dregs of the Baby-
lonian asphalt, and white in color. According to
Plutarch (Alex. p. 35) Alexander first saw it in the
city of Ecbatana, where the inhabitants exhibited
its marvelous effects by strewing it along the street
which led to his he'adquarters and setting it on
fire. He then tried an experiment on a page who
attended him, putting him into a bath of naphtha
and setting light to it (Strabo, xvii. 743), which
nearly resulted in the boy's death. Plutarch sug-
gests that it was naphtha in which Medea steeped
the crown and robe which she gave to the daughter
of Creon ; and Suidas says that the Greeks called
it " Medea's oil," but the Medes " naphtha." The

Persian name is ^-^^^'^ («l/'0- Posidonius (in

Strabo) relates that in Babylonia there were springs
of black and white naphtha. The former^ says
Strabo (xvii. 743), were of liquid bitumen, which

RUB

2753

they burnt in lamps instead of oil. The latter
were of liquid sulphur. W. A. W.

* ROWERS. [Ship (6.)]

* ROWS, Cant. i. 10. [Ornaments, Per-
sonal, note s.]

RUBIES {U)>}^, pemyyim; U'T'^% peni-
mm: \idoiy A- iroAuTcAets: cunctcn opes, cuncta
pretiosissima, gemvus, de ulthnis Jinibus, ebor an-
tiquum), the invariable rendering of the above^
named Hebrew words, concerning the meaning of
which there is much difference of opinion and great
uncertainty. " The price of wisdom is above peni-
nim^' (Job xxviii. 18; see also Prov. iii. 15, viii.
11, xxxi. 10). In Lam. iv. 7 it is said, "the
Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter
than milk, they were more ruddy in body than
peninim.'''' A. Boote (Anunad. Sac. iv. 3), on
account of the ruddiness mentioned in the last
passage, supposed "coral" to be intended, for
which, however, there appears to be another Hebrew
word. [Coral.] J. D. Michaelis {Suppl. p. 2023)
is of the same opinion, and compares the Hebrew

71335 with the Arab. i^V^i, " a branch." Gese-

nius ( Thes. a. v.) defends this argument. Bochart
{Hieroz. iii. 601) contends that the Hebrew term
denotes pearls, and explains the "ruddiness" al-
luded to above, by supposing that the original word

(^l"yS) signifies merely "bright in color," or
color of a reddish tinge." This opinion is sup-
ported by Rosenmliller (Schol. in Thren.), and
others, but opposed by Maurer (Comment.) and
Gesenius. Certainly it would be no compliment
to the great people of the land to say that their
bodies were as red as coral or rubies, unless we
adopt Maurer's explanation, who refers the " rud-
diness " to the blood which flowed in their veins.
On the whole, considering that the Hebrew word
is always used in the plural, we are inclined to
adopt Bochart' s explanation, and understand pearls
to be intended." [Pearls.] W. H.

* RUDDER-BANDS, Acts xxvii. 40.
[Ship (2.)]

RUE (ir^yavoj/'- ruta) occurs only in Luke xi.
42 : " Woe unto you, Pharisees ! for ye tithe mint
and rue and all maimer of herbs." The rue here
spoken of is doubtless the common Ruta grave-
olens, a shrubby plant about 2 feet high, of strong
medicinal virtues. It is a native of the Mediter-
ranean coasts, and has been found by Hasselquist
on Mount Tabor. Dioscorides (iii. 45) describes
twoJcinds of wfjyavov, namely, v. opeivou and tt.
KTiirevTov, which denote the Jiuta montana and
R. graveolens respectively. Rue was in great
repute amongst the ancients, both as a condiment
and as a medicine (Pliny, N. H. xix. 8; Columell.
R. Rus. xii. 7, § 5; Dioscorides, /. c). The Tal-
mud eimmerates rue amongst kitchen-herbs {She-
biith, ch. ix. § 1), and regards it as free of tithe,
as being a plant not cultivated in gardens. In our
Lord's time, however, rue was doubtless a garden-
plant, and therefore tithable, as is evident from
our Lord's words, " these things ought ye to have

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

2 J 2s >

the Arab. ^4^, durr, "pearls;" 5*4>, durrah, "a

pearl," is by some understood to mean " mother of
pearl," or the kind of alabaster called in German
Perlenmutterstein. The LXX. has nCvvivoi KCOoi. See
Gesenius, and Winer {Bibt. Realw. i. 71).

2754

RUFUS

RUTH

done." ITie rue is too well known to need de-
scription." W. H.

RU'FUS {'Pov<pos [red, reddish] : Jiufus) is
mentioned in Mark xv. 21, along with Alexander,
as a son of Simon the Cyrenoean, whom the Jews
compelled to bear the cross of Jesus on the way to
Golgotha (Luke xxiii. 26). As the Evangelist
informs his readers who Simon was by naming the
sons, it is evident that the latter were better
known than the father in the circle of Christians
where Mark lived. Again, in Rom. xvi. 13, the
Apostle Paul salutes a Kufus whom he designates
as " elect in the Lord " {iK\€KThy iu Kup/y), and
whose mother he gracefully recognizes as having
earned a mother's claim upon himself by acts of
kindness shown to him. It is generally supposed
that this Rufus was identical with the one to whom
Mark refers ; and in that case, as Mark wrote his
gospel in all probability at Rome, it was natural
that he should describe to his readers the father
(who, since the mother was at Rome while the
fether apparently was not there, may have died, or
have come later to that city) from his relationship
to two well-known members of the same com-
munity. It is some proof at least of the early
existence of this view that, in the Actis Andrece et
Petri, both Rufus and Alexander appear as com-
panions of Peter in Rome. Assuming, then, that
the same person is meant in the two passages, we
have before us an interesting group of believers —
a father (for we can hardly doubt that Simon
became a Christian, if he was not already such, at
the time of the crucifixion), a mother, and two
brothers, all in the same family. Yet we are to
bear in mind that Rufus was not an uncommon
name (Wetstein, Nov. Test, vol. i. p. 634); and
possibly, therefore, Mark and Paul may have had
in view different individuals. 11. B. H.

RUHA'MAH (n^nn [commiserated] :
ii\(if\n4vy]' misericoi'diam consecuta). The mar-
gin of our version renders it " having obtained
mercy " (Hos. ii. 1). The name, if name it be, is
like IvO-ruhamah, symbolical, and as that was given
to the daughter of the prophet Hosea, to denote
that God's mercy was turned away from Israel, so
the name Ruhamah is addressed to the daughters
of the people tx) denote that they were still the ob-
jects of his love and tender compassion.

RU'MAH (nD^"l [high, exalted:]: 'Vovfid;
Joseph. 'A$ovfjLa'- Jiuma). Mentioned, once only
(2 K. xxiii. 36), as the native place of a certain
Pedaiah, the father of Zebudah, a member of the
harem of king Josiah, and mother of Eliakim or
Jehoiakim king of Judah.

It has been conjectured to be the same place as
Aruniah (Judg. ix. 41), which was apparently near
Shechera. It is more probable that it is identical
with Dumah, one of the towns in the mountains of
Judah, near Hebron (Josh. xv. 52), not far distant
from Libnah, the native town of another of Josiah's
wives- The Hebrew D and R are so similar as
often to be confounded together, and Dumah must
have at any rate been written Rumah in the He-
brew text from which the LXX. translated, since
they give it as Rerana and Rouma.

Josephus mentions a Rumah in Galilee {B. J.
m. 7, § 21). G.

a * « We collected," says Tristram, " four species
wild in Palestine. Rata graveolens is cultivated '• (Nat.
Jiist. of the Bible, p. 478). H.

■

-ans- m

RUSH. [Reed.]

RUST (BpaxTis, 16$: cei-ugo) occurs as the trans
lation of two different Greek words in Matt. vi. 19,
20, and in Jam. v. 3. In the former passage the
word fipuaiS' which is joined with (t^j, "moth,"
has by some been understood to denote the larva of
some moth injurious to corn, as the Tinea granella
(see Stahiton, Insecta Britan. iii. 30). The He-
brew tt7^ (Is. 1. 9) is rendered fipwcris by Aquila;
comp. also L'pist. Jerem. v. 12, airh iou koI fipu-
fidriov, " from rust and moths" (A. V. Bar. vi. 12).
Scultetus (Exerc. Evang. ii. 35, Crit. Sac. vi.)
believes that the words aijs koI fipuais are an hen-
diadys for a^s fipdiCTKoov- The word can scarcely
be taken to signify " rust," for which there is
another term, 16$, which is used by St. James to
express rather the "tarnish" which overspreads
silver than " rust," by which name we now under-
stand " oxide of iron." 'Rpuais is no doubt in-
tended to have reference in a general sense to any
corrupting and destroying substance that may at-
tack treasures of any kind which have long been
suffered to remain undisturbed. The allusion of
St. James is to the corroding nature of 16$ on met-
als. Scultetus correctly observes, " aerugine de-
formantur quidem, sed non corrunipuntur nummi; "
but though this is strictly speaking true, the an-
cients, just as ourselves in common parlance, spoke
of the corroding nature of " rust " (comp. Ham-
mond, Annoial. in Matt. vi. 19). W. H.

RUTH (n:^"!: 'Poii0: probably for n^V"),"
" a friend," the feminine of Reu). A Moabitish
woman, the wife, first, of Mahlon, secondly of Boaz,
and by him mother of Obed, the ancestress of Da-
vid and of Christ, and one of the four women
(Thamar, Rahab, and Uriah's wife being the other
three) who are named by St. Matthew in the gen-
ealogy of Christ. [Rahab.] The incidents in
Ruth's life, as detailed in the beautiful book that
bears her name, may be epitomized as follows. A
severe famine in the land of Judah, caused perhaps
by the occupation of the land by the Moabites un-
der Eglon (as Ussher thinks possible),*^ induced
Elimelech, a native of Bethlehem Ephratah, to emi-
grate into the land of Moab, with his wife Naomi,
and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion. At the
end of ten years Naomi, now left a widow and
childless, having heard that there was plenty again
in Judah, resolved to return to Bethlehem, and
her daughter-in-law, Ruth, returned with her.
" Whither thou goest, I will go, and where thou
lodgest, I will lodge ; thy people shall be my people,
and thy God my God: where thou diest I will die,
and there will I be buried : the Lord do so to me, and
more also, if aught but death part thee and me;"
was the expression of the unalterable attachment hh
of the young Moabitish widow to the mother, to fli
the land, and to the religion of her lost husband. VI
They arrived at Bethlehem just at the beginning
of barley harvest, and Ruth, going out to glean
for the support of her mother-in-law and herself,
chanced to go into the field of Boaz, a wealthy man,
the near kinsman of her father-in-law Elimelech.
The story of her virtues and her kindness and
fidelity to her mother-in-law, and her preference
for the land of her husband's birth, had gone before

b Some think it is for H'^S'I, " beauty."
c Patrick suggests the famine in the days of Gideon
(Judg. vi. 3, 4).

RUTH, BOOK OF

her; and immediately upon learning who the strange
young woman was, Boaz treated her with the ut-
most kindness and respect, and sent her home
laden with corn which she had gleaned. Encour-
aged by this incident, Naomi instructed Ruth to
claim at the hand of Boaz that he should perform
the part of her husband's near kinsman, by pur-
chasing the inheritance of Elinielech, and taking
her to be his wife. But there was a neai-er kins-
man than Boaz, and it was necessary that he
should have the option of redeeming the inheritance
for himself. He, however, declined, fearing to mar
his own inheritance. Upon which, with all due
solemnity, Boaz took Ruth to be his wife, amidst
the blessings and congratulations of their neighbors.
As a singular example of virtue and piety in a rude
age and among an idolatrous people ; as one of the
first-fruits of the Gentile harvest gathered into the
Church; as the heroine of a story of exquisite
beauty and simplicity ; as illustrating in her history
the workings of Divine Providence, and the truth
of the saying, that " the eyes of the l^rd are over
the righteous; " and for the many interesting rev-
elations of ancient domestic and social customs
which are associated with her story, Ruth has al-
ways held a foren)ost place among the Scripture
characters. St. Augustine has a curious specula-
tion on the relative blessedness of Ruth, twice mar-
ried, and by her second marriage becoming the an-
cestress of Christ, and Anna remaining constant in
her widowhood {De bono VidulL). Jerome ob-
serves that we can measure the greatness of Ruth's
virtue by the greatness of her reward — " Ex ^us
semine Christus oritur " {Epist. xxii. ad Paulain).
As the great-grandmother of King David, Ruth
must have flourished in the latter part of Eli's
j udgeship, or the beginning of that of Samuel. But
there seem to be no particular notes of time in the
book, by which her age can be more exactly defined.
The story was put into its present shai)e, avowedly,
long after her lifetime: see Ruth i. 1, iv. 7, 17.
(Bertheau on Ruth, in the Exeg. H<nulb.\ Rosen-
miill. Proaein. in Lib. Ruth ; Parker's De Wette ;
Ewald, Gesch. i. 205, iii. 760 ff.) A. C. H.

* RUTH, BOOK OF. The plan of the Dic-
iionary retjuires that some account should be given
of the book of which Ruth is the heroine. The
topics which claim remark are — its place in the
canon, its age, authorship, object, sources of the his-
tory, its archaeology and the additional literature.

The position of this book in the English Bible
accords with that of the Septuagint, it being very
properly inserted between Judges and ] Samuel as
essentially a supplement to the former and an in-
troduction to the latter, for though Eli and Samuel
as the immediate precursors of the kings occupy a
place in 1 Samuel, the book of Ruth forms a
connecting link between the period of the judges
and that of the monarchy. If Obed the son of
Boaz was the father of Jesse (iv. 17) the events
which the book of Ruth relates must have taken
place in the last century of the age of the judges.
The arrangement in our ordinary Hebrew Bibles at
present places this history, without any regard to
the chronology, among the hagiographa or sacred
writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Solomon's Song,
Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel,
Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles), so classified with
reference to their ethical or practical contents.
[Canon.] Yet some critics maintain that the
original Hebrew order was that of the Septuagint

RUTH, BOOK OF

2755

and the other a later transposition. (See against
that view Cassel, Das Buck Ruth, p. 201 f.)

The dat€ of the composition it is impossible to
ascertain with much precision. It must have been
written after the birth of David (iv. 17) and prob-
ably after his reign ; for the genealogy at the close
presupposes that he had acquired at the time a
historical and theocratic importance which belonged
to him only after he had finished his career as war-
rior, king, and prophet. It is no certain proof of
a much later authorship than this that the custom
of " plucking oflf the shoe " as a legal form had be-
come obsolete when the book was written (iv. 7, 8),
for many changes in the life of the Hebrews must
have taken place rapidly after the establishment of
the monarchy, and in addition to this, if Boaz was
the immediate ancestor of Obed, and Obed was the
father of Jesse (iv. 17 ) an interval of three genera-
tions at least lay between Boaz aiid the close of
David's reign. Some critics point out certain words
and grammatical forms in the book which they allege
to be proof of a later composition, and would even
bring it down to the Chaldee period of Jewish his-
tory. Examples of this are ^"n^^l^rij rP^^-H?
(ii. 8, 21), "l^-l^rp': (il. 9), ^'m\D ''ipiTl
(iii. 3), "'ri^ptt? (iii. 4), SHD instead of iTlD

(i. 20), ]n!p instead of ^57' ^"•^ others, but as
these and some other expressions, partly peculiar
and partly infrequent only, either do not occur at
all in the later books, or occur at the same time in
some of the earlier books, they surely cannot be
alleged with any confidence as marks of a Chaldee
style (see Keil's Einl. in das A. Test. p. 415 f., and
Wright's Buok of R^ith, p. xli. fF.). The few un-
common words or phrases are found in fact in the
passages of our book where the persons introduced
appear as the speakers, and not in the language of
the historian, and may be considered as relics of
the conversational phraseology of the age of the
judges, which happen to be not elsewhere pre-
served. Bleek decides in like manner that the lan-
guage of the book settles nothing with regard to
the time when the book was written. The earlier
origin of the book of Ruth, as De Wette admits
{Einl. in das A. Test. § 194), is manifest from the
entire absence of any repugnance to intermarriage
between the Hebrews and foreigners. The extrac-
tion of Ruth is not r^arded as offensive or requir-
ing so much as a single word of apology. It is
impossible on this account that it should belong to
the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, when so different
a feeling prevailed in regard to such alliances (see
Ezr. ix. and x. and Neh. xiii. 23 ff.). The au-
thor is unknown. One of the Jewish traditions
names Samuel as the writer; but, as has been sug-
gested already, David was comparatively unknown
till after the death of Samuel.

With regard to the sources of the history we can
only say with Bleek (Einl. in das A. Test. p. 355)
that we cannot decide whether the writer found
and used an extant written document or merely
followed some tradition preserved in the family of
David which came to his knowledge. Nothing in
the significance of the personal Hebrew names casts
any doubt on the truthfulness of the narrative.
Out of all the names occurring there only two,
Mahlon and Chilion, give the least semblance of
truth to that allegation. The correspondence be-
tween the meaning of these (as usually defined)

2756

RUTH, BOOK OF

and the early death of the persons who bear them,
may be accidental, or tlie original names may have
been changed after their death. On this point see
Chilion and Names (Amer. ed.).

The object of the book has been variously
stated. That the author merely intended to up-
hold the authority of the levirate law requir-
ing a brother-in-law to marry the widow of a
deceased brother (Cien. xxxviii. 8; Deut. xxv. 5 ff.)
is entirely improbable; for the assumption of that
relationship appears here only as an incident of the
history, and in reality Boaz was not the brother
of Mahlon, the husband of Ruth (iv. 10), but only
a remote kinsman of the family, and his action
in the case was voluntary and not required by any
Mosaic statute. To regard also the object as
merely that of tracing the genealogy of David's
family is certainly too limited a view. We must find
the explanation of the purpose in the facts them-
selves which the history relates, and the narrator's
manifest interest in precisely these facts as shown
in the tone and coloring which he has given to the
history. It is the pious, genuinely theocratic spirit
exhibited by the actors in the little book, which con-
fers upon it its higher importance and characteristic
unity. This aim and tendency appear most con-
spicuously in ii. 11, 12. Ruth has left her heathen
native land ; the God of her mother-in-law is her
God (i. 16). She has gone to an unknown people,
has taken refuge under the wings of the God of
Israel, has looked to Him for help, and has found
more than she could expect or conceive of in being
permitted to become the mother of the royal house
of David. (See Hsivernick's Einl. in das A. Test.
ii. 113.) The fact that Matthew (i. 3-6), who adds
however the names of Thamar and Rahab, and
Luke (iii. 31-33) insert the genealogy of David
as given at the end of the book in the tables
of the genealogy of Christ, not only shows that the
book of Ruth formed a recognized part of the He-
brew Scriptures, but that God's arrangements in
providing a Saviour for all the races of mankind
held forth a significant foretoken of this uni-
versality in the character of the Saviour's lineage
as derived from Gentile ancestors as well as Jewish.
David's descent from Ruth is known to us only from
this book. The books of Samuel are silent on this
point, and Chronicles, though they mention Boaz
as one of his ancestors, say nothing of Ruth
(1 Chr. ii. 11, 12).

The illustrations of oriental life furnished by
modern travellers impart to this book a character
of vividness and reality which deserves attention.
Naomi and Ruth arrived at- Beth-lehem from
the land of Moab "in the beginning of barley
harvest '* (i. 22). It was about the first of April,
therefore, for the cereal crops are generally ripe in
the south of Palestine at that time. Beth-lehem,
which signifies " house of bread " with reference to
its fertility, is still famous for its fields of grain,
which occur especially on the plains eastward as
one approaches from the valley of the Jordan.
Such fields now, as was true anciently, are not en-
closed by walls or hedges, but separated by single
stones set up here and there, or by a footpath only ;
and hence it is said that it was " the hap " or lot
of Ruth to hght upon the part of the field which
belonged to Boaz (ii. 3). Notice the local pre-
cision of the narrator. To reach the grain-fields
or threshing-floor from her home in Beth-lehem
Ruth "went down" from the city (iii. 3, 6); for
Beth-lehem is on higher ground than the adjacent

region, and especially on the south and east
is almost precipitously cut off from its environs.
The gleaning after the reapers (ii. 3, 7, 16) was
allowed to the poor among the Hebrews (a right
guaranteed by an express Mosaic statute), and is
still practiced in the Mast. Dr. Thomson being
in the vicinity of Beth-lehem at the time of
barley-harvest states that he saw women and chil-
dren gleaning after every company of reapers
(Land and Book; ii. 509). The "parched corn"
which Boaz gave her at their rustic repast was not
such in our sense of the expression, but consisted
of roasted heads of grain. The mode of prepar-
ing the food we learn from the methods still em-
ployed. Mr. Tristram describes one of them which
he saw in Galilee near Lake Huleh. " A few
sheaves of wheat were tossed on the fire, and as
soon as the straw was consumed the charred heads
were dexterously swept from the embers on to a
cloak spread on the ground. The women of the
party then beat the ears and tossed them into the
air until they were thoroughly winnowed, when the
wheat was eaten without further preparation.
. . . The green ears had become half charred by the
roasting, and there was a pleasant mingling of
milky wheat and a fresh crust flavor as we chewed
the parched corn " {Land of Israel, p. 590). Ac-
cording to another method some of the best ears,
with the stalks attached, are tied into small par-
cels, and the corn-heads are held over the fire
until the chaff is mostly burned oflf; and, after
being thus roasted, they are rubbed out in the
hand and the kernels eaten (Thomson, ii. 510).
The Hebrew terras for corn thus roasted are

"^bf? and S"^b|7 (Lev. xxiii. 14; Ruth ii. 14;
1 Sam. xvii. 17, xxv. 18; and 2 Sam. xvii. 18).

The chomets or vinegar in which the eaters
dipped their morsel (ii. 14) was sour wine mingled
with oil, still a favorite beverage among the people
of the East (see Keil's Bibl. Archaioloyie, ii. 16). At
the close of the day Ruth beat out the grain of the
ears which she had gathered (ii. 17). " It is a com-
mon sight now," says Thomson, " to ^ee a poor
woman or maiden sitting by the way-side and beat-
ing out with a stick or stone the grain-stocks which
she has gleaned " {Land and Bixtk^ ii. 509). As late
as May 21, not far from Gaza, says Robinson, " we
found the lazy inhabitants still engaged in treading
out the barley harvest, which their neighbors had
completed long before. Several women were beat-
ing out with a stick handfuls of the grain which
they seemed to have gleaned " {Bibl. lies. ii. 385).
In another field the next day he saw " 200 reapers
and gleaners at work ; a few were taking refresh-
ments and offered us some of their parched
com " {Bibl. Res. iii. 394). The winnowing took
place by night in accordance with the agricultural
habits of the land at present; for the heat being
oppressive by day the farmers avoid its power as
much as possible, and the wind also is apt to be
stronger by night than during the day. The
Hebrew term {yoren) describes the threshing-floor
as simply a plot of ground in the open air, smoothed
off and beaten hard, such as the traveller now sees
everywhere as he passes through the country. It
might seem strange that a rich proprietor, like
Boaz, should be said to have slept at night in such
a place; but that is the custom still, rendered
necessary by the danger of pillage and the untrust-
worthiness of the hired laborers. Robinson, speak-
ing of a night spent in the mountains of Hebron,

■I

RYE

says : " Here are needed no guards around the
tent; the owners of the crops came every night
and slept upon their threshing-floors. We were
here iu the midst of scenes precisely like those
of the book of Ruth (iii. 2-14); where Boaz win-
nowed barley and laid himself down at night to
guard the heap of corn " {Bibl. Res. ii. 446). " It
is not unusual for the husband, wife, and all the
family to encamp at the baiders or threshing-floors,
until the harvest is over" (Thomson, ii. 511).
The " vail " in which Ruth carried home the " six
measures of barley " given to her by Boaz, was a
mantle as well as veil, " a square piece of cotton
cloth" such as eastern women still wear; "and I
have often seen it used," says Thomson, *'for just
such service as that to which Ruth applied hers "
(ii. 509). Barley is rarely used for purposes of
food in Syria except by the poor; and that Ruth
and Naomi are represented as glad to avail them-
selves of such means of subsistence comports with
the condition of poverty which the narrative as-
cribes to them. [Barley. J The scene in the
square at the gate (iv. 1-12) is thoroughly orien-
tal. It is hardly necessary to say that the gate in
eastern cities is now and has been from time imme-
morial the place of concourse where the people
come together to hear the news, to discuss public
afliiirs, to traffic, dispense justice, or do anything
else that pertains to the common welfare (Gen.
xix. 1, xxxiv. 20; Deut. xvi. 18; xxi. 19).

Some of the writers on this book are mentioned
in the article on Ruth. The following may be
added: Umbreit, Ueber Gtist u. Zweck des
Bucks Ruth, in the Studien u. Kintiken, 1834,
pp. 305-308. F. Benary, De Hebroeoi-um Levi-
raiii, pp. 1-70 (1835). C. L. F. Metzger, Lib. Ruth
ex Htbr. in Lot. vers. ])erpetuaque interpr. illustr.
(Tub. 1856). Keil, Bibl. Coinmentar, iii. 357-
382, and transl. in Clark's Fweign T/ieoL Library,
viii. pp. 465-494. Paulus Cassel, Dns Buck der
Richter u. Ruth, in Lange's Bibelioerk, pp. 198-
242 (1865). C. H. H. Wright, Bi)ok of Ruth in
Hebrew and Choldee (pp. vii.-xlviii. and 1-76, 1-49),
containing a critically revised text to the Chaldee
Targum of Ruth and valuable notes, explanatory
and philological (1865). Christopher W'ordsworth,
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, in his IJoly Bible, with
Introductiims anil Notes, ii. pt. i. pp. 158-170
(1865). Bishop Hall, two sermons on Naomi and
Ruth and Boaz and Ruth, in his Contemplations,
bk. xi. Stanley's Lectures on the Jewish Church,
i. 336-38. H.

RYE (n^^S, cussemeth: (ed, 6\vpa: far,
vicia) occurs in Ex. ix. 32; Is. xxviii. 25; in the
latter the margin reads "spelt." In Ez. iv. 9 the
text has "fitches" and the margin "rie." There
are many opinions as to the signification of cus-
semeth ; some authorities maintaining that fitches
are denoted, others oats, and others rye. Celsius
has shown that in all probability "spelt" is
intended (Hierob. ii. 98), and this opinion is sup-
ported by the LXX. and the Vulg. in Ex. ix. 32,
and by the Syriac versions. Rye is for the most
part a northern plant, and was probably not culti-
vated in Egypt or Palestine in early times, whereas
spelt has been long cultivated in the East, where it

a Can it be this phrase which determined the use
of the Te Deum as a thanksgiving for victories ?

*> For the passages which follow, the writer is in-
debted to the kindness of a friend.

SABAOTH, THE LORD OF 275T

is held in high estimation. Herodotus (ii. 36)
says the Egyptians " make bread from spelt {d.Trh
b\vp(0)v)i which some call zea." See also PUny
(//. N. xviii. 8), and Dioscorides (ii. Ill), who
speaks of two kinds. The cussemeth was culti-
vated in Egypt; it was not injured by the hail-
storm of the seventh plague (Ex. /. c), as it was
not grown up. This cereal was also sown in Pal-
estine (Is. I. c), on the margins or "headlands"

of the fields (in722); it was used for mixing
with wheat, barley, etc., for making bread (Ez.
/. c). The Arabic, Chirsanat, "spelt," is regarded
by Gesenius as identical with the Hebrew word,
m and n being interchanged and r inserted.
" Spelt " ( Triticvm spelta) is grown in some parts
of the south of Germany; it differs but slightly
from our common wheat ( T. vulgare). There are
three kinds of spelt, namely, T. spelta, T. dicoc-
cum (rice wheat), and T. moiwcoccum. [Rie,
Amer. ed.] W. H.

SABAOTH, THE LORD OF {Kipios ca-
fiadoO: Dominus Sabaoth). The name is found in
the English Bible only twice (Rom. ix. 29 ; James
V. 4). It is probably more familiar through its
occurrence in the Sanctus of the Te Deumo —
" Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth." It is
too often considered to be a synonym of, or to have
some connection with Sabbath, and to express the
idea of rest. And this not only popularly, but in
some of our most classical writers.^ Thus Spenser,
Faery Queen, canto viii. 2 : —

" But thenceforth all shall rest eternally
With Him that is the God of Sabaoth hight :
that great Sabaoth God, grant me that Sabaoth 'a
Bight."

And Bacon, Advancement of Learning, ii. 24: —
" . . . sacred and inspired Divinity, the Sabaoth
and port of all men's labors and peregrinations."
And Johnson, in the 1st edition of whose Diction-
ary (1755) Sabaoth and Sabbath are treated as the
same word. And Walter Scott, Icanhoe, i. ch. 11
(1st ed.): — "a week, aye the space between two
Sabaoths." But this connection is quite fictitious.
The two words are not only entirely different, but
have nothing in common.

Sabaoth is the Greek form of the Hebrew word
tsebdoth, "armies," and occurs in the oft-repeated
formula which is translated in the Authorized Ver-
sion of the Old Test, by " Lord of hosts," " Lord
God of hosts.'''' We are apt to take '■<■ hosts " (prob-
ably in connection with the modern expression the
"heavenly host") as implying the angels — but
this is surely inaccurate. Tsebdoth is in constant
use in the O. T. for the national army or force of
fighting-men,c and there can be no doubt that in
the mouth and the mind of an ancient Hebrew, Je-
hovuh-tsebdoih was the leader and commander of
the armies of the nation, who " went forth with
them" (Ps. xUv. 9), and led them to certain vic-
tory over the worshippers of Baal, Chemosh, Mo-
lech, Ashtaroth, and other false gods. In later
times it lost this peculiar significance, and became
httle if anything more than an alternative title for
God. The name is not found in the Pentateuch,

c n*S:2!?. See 1 Sam. xii. 9, 1 K. i. 19, and p<w
sim in Burgh's Concordance, p. 1058.

2758 SABAT

or the books of Joshua, Judges, or Ruth. It is
frequent in the books' of Samuel, rarer in Kings,
is found twice only in the Chronicles, and not at
all in Ezekiel; but in the Psalms, in Isaiah, Jere-
miah, and the minor Prophets it is of constant oc-
currence, and in fact is used almost to the exclusion
of every other title. [Tsevaoth, Am. ed.] G.

SA'BAT i2a(pdy; Alex. :ia<t>aT', [Aid. 2o-
fidr'] Phasphat). 1. The sons of Sabat are
enumerated among the sons of Solomon's servants
who returned with Zorobabel (1 Esdr. v. 34).
There is no corresponding name in the lists of
Ezra and Nehemiah.

2. (5o/3aT: Habath.) The month Sebat (1
Mace. xvi. 14).

SABATE'AS [A.V.ed. 1611, SABATE'US]
(2oj8aTaros; Alex. 2ai8/3oTotos ; [Aid. 5a)8aT-
ralas'-^ Sabbatheus). Shabbethai (1 Esdr. ix.
48; comp. Neh. viii. 7).

SAB'ATUS (2<{)3a0os; [Aid. St^ySaros :] Znb-
dis). Zabad (1 Esdr. ix. 28; comp. F^r. x. 27).

SAB'BAN" (SajSawos : Banni). Binnui 1
(1 Esdr. viii. 63; comp. Ezr. viii. 33).

SABBATH (nSt^, " a day of rest," from

n5^, " to cease to do," " to rest "). This is the
obvious and undoubted etymology. The resem-
blance of the word to 3?^!]?, " seven," misled Lac-
tantius {Inst. iii. 14) and others; but it does not
seem more than accidental. Bahr {Symbolik, ii.

533-34) does not reject the derivation from HDir,

but traces that to 21 tt?, somewhat needlessly and
fancifully, as it appears to us. Plutarch's associa-
tion of the word with the Bacchanalian cry cafiot
may of course be dismissed at once. We have also

(Ex. xvi. 23, and Lev. xxiii. 24) ^raiT, of more

intense signification than iH^ti?: also iHDti?

lirOtt?, » a Sabbath of Sabbaths " (Ex. xxxi. 15,
and elsewhere). The name Sabbath is thus ap-
plied to divers great festivals, but principally and
usually to the seventh day of the week, the strict
observance of which is enforced not merely in the
general Mosaic code, but in the Decalogue itself.

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

Before, then, deaUng with the question whether

SABBATH

o Vide Patrick in loc, and Selden, De Jure Nat. et
Oent. iii. 9.
b Tide Grotius in loc, who refers to Aben-Ezra.

larcr**. ^"I

its original institution comprised mankind at large,
or merely stamped on Israel a very marked badge
of nationality, it will be well to trace somewhat of
its position and history among the chosen people.

Many of the Rabbis date its first institution from
the incident « recorded in Ex. xv. 25 ; and believe
that the "statute and ordinance" there mentioned
as being given by God to the children of Israel was
that of the Sabbath, together with the command-
ment to honor father and mother, their previous
law having consisted only of what are called the
" seven precepts of Noah." This, however, seems
to want foundation of any sort, and the statute and
ordinance in question are, we think, suflSciently ex-
plained by the words of ver. 26, " If thou wilt dili-
gently hearken," etc. We are not on sure ground
till we come to the unmistakable institution in ch.
xvi. in connection with the gathering of manna.
The words in this latter are not in themselves
enough to indicate whether such institution was al-
together a novelty, or whether it referred to a day
the sanctity of which was already known to those
to whom it was given. There is plausibility cer-
tainly in the opinion of Grotius, that the day was
already known, and in some measure observed as
holy, but that the rule of abstinence from work was
first given then, and shortly afterwards more ex-
plicitly imposed in the Fourth Commandment.
I'here it is distinctly set forth, and extended to the
whole of an Israelite's household, his son and his
daughter, his slaves, male and female, his ox and
his ass, and the stranger within his gates. It
would seem that by this last was understood the
stranger who while still uncircumcised yet wor-
shipped the true'* God; for the mere heathen
stranger was not considered to be under the law of
the Sabbath. In the Fourth Commandment, too,
the institution is grounded on the revealed truth
of the six days' creation and the Divine rest on
the seventh; but in the version of it which we
find in Deuteronomy a further reason is added:
" And remember that thou wast a stranger in the
land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought
thee forth with a mighty hand and by a stretched-
out arm ; therefore the Lord thy God commanded
thee to keep the Sabbath day " (Deut. v. 15).

Penalties and provisions in other parts of the
Law construed the abstinence from labor prescribed
in the commandment. It was forbidden to light a
fire, a man was stoned for gathering sticks, on the
Sabbath. At a later period we find the Prophet
Isaiah uttering solemn warnings against profaning,
and promising large blessings on the due observ-
ance of the day (Is. Iviii. 13, 14). In Jeremiah's
time there seems to have been an habitual violation
of it, amounting to transacting on it such an ex-
tent of business as involved the carrying burdens
about (Jer. xvii. 21-27). His denunciations of
this seem to have led the Pharisees in their bond-
age to the letter to condemn the impotent man for
carrying his bed on the Sabbath in obedience to
Christ who had healed him (John v. 10). We
must not suppose that our Lord prescribed a real
violation of the Law ; and it requires little thought
to distinguish between such a natural and almost
necessary act as that which He commanded, and
the carrying of burdens in connection with busi-
ness which is denounced by Jeremiah. By Ezekiel
(xx. 12-24), a passage to which we must shortly
return, the profanation of the Sabbath is made fore-
most among the national sins of the Jews. From
Nehemiah x. 31, we learn that the people entered

SABBATH

into a covenant to renew the observance of the Law,
in which they pledged themselves neither to buy
nor sell victuals on the Sabbath. The practice was
then not infrequent, and Nehemiah tells us (xiii.
15-22) of the successful steps which he took for its
stoppage.

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

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

Before proceeding to any of the more curious
questions connected with the Sabbath, such as that
of its alleged pre-Mosaic origin and obsenance, it
will be well to consider and determine what were
it« tnie idea and purpose in that Law of which
beyond doubt it formed a leading feature, and
among that people for whom, if for none else, we
know that it was designed. And we shall do this
with most advantage, as it seems to us, by pursu-
ing the inquiry in the following order: —

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

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

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

I. Nearly every one is aware that the Pharisaic
and Rabbinical schools invented many prohibitions
respecting the Sabbath of which we find nothing in
the original institution. Of these some may have
been legitimate enforcements in detail of that insti-
tution, such as the Scribes and Pharisees " sitting
in Moses' seat " (Matt, xxiii. 2, 3) had a right to
impose. How a general law is to be carried out in
particular cases, must often be determined for

a It is obvious from the whole scope of the chapter
that the words, " Ye shall keep mj' sabbaths," in Lev.
zxvi. 2, related to all these. In the ensuing threat of

SABBATH 2759

others by such as have authority to do so. To
this class may belong the limitation of a Sabbath-
day's journey, a limitation not absolutely at vari-
ance with the fundamental canon that the Sabbath
was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, al-
though it may have proceeded from mistaking a
temporary enactment for a permanent one. Many,
however, of these prohibitions were fantastic and
arbitrary, in the number of those " heavy burdens
and grievous to be borne" which the later ex-
pounders of the Law " laid on men's shoulders."
We have seen that the impotent man's carrying his
bed was considered a violation of the Sabbath — a
notion probably derived from Jeremiah's warnings
against the commercial traflBc carried on at the
gates of Jerusalem in his day. The harmless act
of the disciples in the corn-field, and the beneficent
heahng of the man in the synagogue with the
withered hand (Matt. xii. 1-13), were alike re-
garded as breaches of the Law. Our Lord's reply
in the former ca.se will come before us under our
third head ; in the latter He appeals to the prac-
tice of the objectors, who would any one of them
raise his own sheep out of the pit into which the
animal had fallen on the Sabbath-day. From this
appeal, we are forced to infer that such practice
would have been held lawful at the time and place
in which He spoke. It is remarkal)le, however,
that we find it prohibited in other traditions, the
law laid down being, that in this case a man might
throw some needful nourishment to the animal, but
must not pull him out till the next day. (See
Heylin, Hist, of Sabbath, i. 8, quoting Buxtorf.)
This rule possibly came into existence in conse-
quence of our Lord's appeal, and with a view to
warding off the necessary inference irom it. Still
more fantastic prohibitions were issued. It was
unlawful to catch a flea on the Sabbath, except
the insect were actually hurting his assailant, or to
mount into a tree, lest a branch or twig should
be broken in the process. The Samaritans were
especially rigid in matters like these; and Dosi-
theus, who founded a sect amongst them, went so
far as to maintain the obligation of a man's re-
maining throughout the Sabbath in the posture
wherein he chanced to be at its commencement —
a rule which most people would find quite destruc-
tive of its character as a day of rest. When minds
were occupied with such viicrology, as this has been
well called, there was obviously no limit to the
number of prohibitions which they might devise,
confusing, as they obviously did, abstinence from
action of every sort with rest from business and
labor.

That this pen'ersion of the Sabbath had become
very general in our Saviour's time is apparent both
from the recorded objections to acts of his on that
day, and from his marked conduct on occasions to
which those objections were sure to be urged. There
is no /eason, however, for thinking that the Phar-
isees had arrived at a sentence against pleasure of
every sort on the sacred day. The duty of hospi-
tality was remembered. It was usual for the rich
to give a feast on that day ; and our Lord's attend-
ance at such a feast, and making it the occasion of
putting forth his rules for the demeanor of guests,
and for the right exercise of hospitality, show that
the gathering of friends and social enjoyment were

judgment in case of neglect or violation of the Law,
the Sabbatical year would seem to be mainly referred
to (vv. 34, 35).

2760 SABBATH

not deemed inconsistent with the true scope and
spirit of the Sabbath. It was thought right that
the meats, though cold, should be of the best and
choicest, nor might the Sabbath be chosen for a
fast.

Such are the inferences to which we are brought
by our Lord's words concerning, and works on, the
sacred day. We have already protested against
the notion which has been entertained that they
were breaches of the Sabbath intended as harbin-
gers of its abolition. Granting for argument's sake
that such abolition was in prospect, still our Lord,
*' made under the Law," would have violated no
part of it so long as it was Law. Nor can any-
thing be inferred on the other side from the Evan-
gelist's language (John v. 18). The phrase " He
had broken the Sabbath," obviously denotes not
the character of our Saviour's act, but the Jewish
estimate of it. He had broken the Pharisaic rules
respecting the Sabbath. Similarly his own phrase,
" the priests profane the Sabbath and are blame-
Jess," can only be understood to assert the lawful-
ness of certain acts done for certain reasons on that
day, which, taken in themselves and without those
reasons, would be profanations of it. There re-
mains only his appeal to the eating of the shew-
bread by David and his companions, which was no
doubt in its matter a breach of the Law. It
does not follow, however, that the act in justifi-
cation of which it is appealed to was such a
breach. It is rather, we think, an argument «
fo7-tioi-i, to the effect, that if even a positive law
might give place on occasion, much more might an
arbitrary rule like that of the Rabbis in the case in
question.

Finally, the declaration that " the Son of Man
is Lord also of the Sabbath," must not be viewed
as though our Lord held Himself free from the
Law respecting it. It is to be taken in connection
with the preceding words, " the Sabbath was made
for man," etc., from which it is an inference, as is
shown by the adverb therefore ; and the Son of
Man is plainly speaking of Himself as i/ie Man, the
Representative and Exemplar of all mankind, and
teaching us that the human race is lord of the
Sabbath, the day being made for man, not man for
the day.

If, then, our Lord, coming to fulfill and rightly
interpret the Law, did thus protest against the
Pharisaical and Rabbinical rules respecting the Sab-
bath, we are supplied by this protest with a large
negative view of that ordinance. The acts con-
demned by the Pharisees icere not violations of it.
Mere action, as such, was not a violation of it, and
far less was a work of healing and beneficence. To
this we shall have occasion by and by to return.
Meanwhile we must try to gain a positive view of
the institution, and proceed in furtherance of this
to our second head.

II. The Sabbath, as we have said, was the key-
note to a scale of Sabbatical observance — consist-
ing of itself, the seventh month, the seventh year,
and the year of Jubilee. As each seventh day
was sacred, so was each seventh month, and each
seventh year. Of the observances of the seventh
month, little needs be said. That month opened
with the Feast of Trumpets, and contained the Day
of Atonement and Feast of Tabernacles — the last
named being the most joyful of Hebrew festivals.
It is not apparent, nor likely, that the whole of
the month was to be characterized by cessation
from labor; but it certainly has a place in the

SABBATH

Sabbatical scale. Its great centre was the Feast
of Tabernacles or Ingathering, the year and the
year's labor having then done their work and
yielded their issues. In this last respect its anal-
ogy to the weekly Sabbath is obvious. Only at
this part of the Sabbatical cycle do we find any
notice of humiliation. On the Day of Atonement
the people were to aflSict their souls (Lev. xxiii.
27-29).

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

In Exodus xxiii. 10, 11, we find the Sabbatical
year placed in close connection with the Sabbath-
day, and the words in which the former is pre-
scribed are analogous to those of the Fourth Com-
mandment : " Six years thou shalt sow thy land
and gather in the fruits thereof; but the seventh
year thou shalt let it rest and he still; that the
poor of thy people may eat; and what they leave
the beasts of the field shall eat." This is imme-
diately followed by a renewed proclamation of the
law of the Sabbath, " Six days thou shalt do thy
work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest : that
thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy
handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed." It
is impossible to avoid perceiving that in these pas-
sages the two institutions are put on the same
ground, and are represented as quite homogeneous.
Their aim, as here exhibited, is eminently a benefi-
cent one. To give rights to classes that would
otherwise have been without such, to the bond-
man and bondmaid, nay, to the beast of the field,
is viewed here as their main end. " The stranger,"
too, is comprehended in the benefit. Many, we
suspect, while reading the Fourth Commandment,
merely regard him as subjected, together with his
host and family, to a prohibition. 13ut if we con-
sider how continually the stranger is referred to
in the enactments of the Law, and that with a
view to his protection, the instances being one-and-
twenty in number, we shall be led to regard his
inclusion in the I^urth Commandment rather as a
benefit conferred than a prohibition imposed on
him.

The same beneficent aim is still more apparent
in the fuller legislation respecting the Sabbatical
year which we find in Lev. xxv. 2-7, " When ye
come into the land which I give you, then shall
the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord. Six years
thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt
prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;
but in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest
unto the land, a sabbath unto the Lord; thou
shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard.
That which groweth of its own accord of thy har-
vest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes
of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest
unto the land. And the sabbath of the land shall
be meat for you ; for thee, and for thy slave, and
for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy
stranger .that sojourneth with thee, and for thy
cattle and for the beasts that are in thy land,
shall all the increase thereof be meat." One great
aim of both institutions, the Sabbath-day and the
Sabbatical year, clearly was to debar the Hebrew
from the thought of absolute ownership of any-
thing. His time was not his own, as was shown him
by each seventh day being the Sabbath of the Lord

SABBATH

his God; his land was not his own but God's (f.ev.
XXV. 23), as was shown by the Sabbath of each
seventh year, during which it was to have rest,
and all individual right over it was to be sus-
pended. It was also to be the year of release from
debt (Deut. xv.). We do not read much of the
way in which, or the extent to which, the Hebrews
observed tlie Sabbatical year. The reference to it
(2 Chr. xxxvi. 21) leads us to conclude that it had
been much neglected previous to the Captivity, but
it was certainly not lost sight of afterwards, since
Alexander the Tjreat absolved the Jews from pay-
ing tribute on it, their religion debarring them
from acquiring the means of doing so. [Sabbat-
ical Year.]

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

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

III. We must consider the actual enactments of
Scripture respecting the seventh day. However
homogeneous the difierent Sabbatical periods may
be, the weekly Sabbath is, as we have said, the
tonic or key-note. It alone is prescribed in the
Decalogue, and it alone has in any shape survived
the earthly commonwealth of Israel. We must
still postpone the question of its observance by the
patriarchs, and commence our inquiry with the
institution of it in the wilderness, in connection
with the gathering of manna (Ex. xvi. 23). The
prohibition to gather the manna on the Sabbath
is accompanied by one to bake or to seethe on that
day. The Fourth Commandment gives us but
the generality, "all manner of work," and, seeing
that action of one kind or another is a necessary
accompaniment of waking life, and cannot there-
fore in itself be intended, as the later Jews im-
agined, by the prohibition, we are left to seek
elsewhere for the particular application of the
general principle. That general principle in itself,
however, obviously embraces an abstinence from
worldly labor or occupation, and from the en-
forcing such on servants or dependents, or on the
stranger. By him, as we have said, is most prob-
ably meant the partial proselyte, who would not
have received much consideration from the Hebrews
had they been left to themselves, as we nmst infer
from the numerous laws enacted for his protection.
Had man been then regarded by him as made for
the Sabbath, not the Sabbath for man, that is, had
the prohibitions of the commandment been viewed
as the putting on of a yoke, not the conferring of a
privilege, one of the dominant race would probably
have felt no reluctance to placing such a stranger
under that yoke. The naming him therefore in
the commandment helps to interpret its whole
principle, and testifies to its having been a benefi-
cent privilege for all who came within it. It gave
174

SABBATH

2T61

rights to the slave, to the despised stranger, even
to the ox and the ass.

This beneficent character of the Fourth Com-
mandment is very apparent in the version of it
which we find in Deuteronomy: " Keep the Sab-
bath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath
commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labor and
do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sab-
bath of the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
nor thy bondman, nor thy bondwoman, nor thine
ox, nor thine ass, nor thy stranger that is within
thy gates: that thy bondman and thy bond-
woman may rest as well as thou. And remember
that thou wast a slave in the land of Egypt, and
that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence
through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out
arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded
thee to keep the Sabbath-day" (Deut. v. 12-15).
But although this be so, and though it be plain
that to come within the scope of the command-
ment was to possess a franchise, to share in a privi-
lege, yet does the original proclamation of it in
Exodus place it on a ground which, closely con-
nected no doubt with these others, is yet higher and
more comprehensive. The divine method of work-
ing and rest is there proposed to man as the model
after which he is to work and to rest. Time then
presents a perfect whole, is then well rounded and
entire, when it is shai)ed into a week, modeled on
the six days of creation and their following Sab-
bath. Six days' work and the seventh day's rest
conform the life of man to the method of his Cre-
ator. In distributing his life thus, man may look
up to God as his Archetype. We need not sup-
pose that the Hebrew, even in that early stage of
spiritual education, was limited by so gross a con-
ception as that of God working and then resting,
as if needing rest. The idea awakened by the
record of creation and by the Fourth Commandment
is that of work that has a consummation, perfect
in itself and coming to a perfect end ; and man's
work is to be like this, not aimless, indefinite, and
incessant, but having an issue on which he can
repose, and see and rejoice in its fruits. God's
rest consists in his seeing that all which He has
made is very good; and man's works are in their
measure and degree very good when a six days'
faithful labor has its issue in a seventh of rest
after God's pattern. It is most important to re-
member that the Fourth Commandment is not
limited to a mere enactment respecting one day,
but prescribes the due distribution of a week,
and enforces the six days' work as much, as the
seventh day's rest.

This higher ground of observance was felt to
invest the Sabbath with a theological character,
and rendered it the great witness for faith in a
personal and creating God. Hence its- supremacy
over all the Law, being sometimes taken as the
representative of it all (Neh. ix. 14). The Tal-
mud says that "the Sabbath is in importance
equal to the whole Law;" that "-he who dese-
crates the Sabbath openly is like him who trans-
gresses the whole Law; " while Maimonidas winds
up his discussion of the subject thus-: "He who
breaks the Sabbath openly is like the wonshipper
of the stars, and both are like heathens- in every
respect."

In all this, however, we have but an assertion
of the general principle of resting on the Sabbath,
and must seek elsewhei-e for information as- to t«he

2762 SABBATH

details wherewith that principle was to be brought
out. We have already seen that the work forbidden
is not to be confounded with action of every sort.
To make this confusion was the error of the later
Jews, and their prohibitions would <!;o far to render
the Sabbath incompatible with waking Ufe. The
terms in the commandment show plainly enough
the sort of work which is contemplated. They are

^D^^ and n^S vtt, the former denoting servile
work, and the latter business (see Gesenius stib
voc. ; Michaelis, Laws of Moses, iv. 195). The
Pentateuch presents us with but three applications
of the general principle. The hghting a fire
in any house on the Sabbath was strictly forbid-
den (Ex. XXXV. 3), and a man was stoned for gath-
ering sticks on that day (Num. xv. 32-36). The
former prohibition is thought by the Jews to be
of perpetual iorce ; but some at least of the Rabbis
have held that it applies only to lighting a fire for
culinary purposes, not to doing so in cold weather
for the sake of warmth. The latter case, that of
the man gathering sticks, was perhaps one of more
labor and business than we are apt to imagine.
The third application of the general principle
which we find in tlie I'entateuch was the prohibi-
tion to go out of the camp, the command to every
one to abide in his place {Ex. xvi. 29) on the Sab-
bath-clay. This is so obviously connected with the
gathering the manna, that it seems most natural
to regard it as a mere temporary enactment for the
circumstances of the people in the wilderness. It
was, however, afterwards considered by the He
brews a permanent law, and appUed, in the ab-
sence of the camp, to the city in which a man
might reside. To this was appended the dictum
that a space of two thousand ells on every side of
a city belonged to it, and to go that distance
beyond the walls was permitted as "a Sabbath-
day's journey."

The reference of Isaiah to the Sabbath gives us
no details. Those in Jeremiah and Nehemiah show
that carrying goods for sale, and buying such, were
equally profanations of the day.

There is no ground for supposing that to engage
the enemy on the Sabbath was considered unlaw-
ful before the Captivity. On the contrary, there is
much force in the argument of Michaelis {Laws of
Moses, iv. 196) to show that it was not. His
reasons are as follows : —

1. The prohibited "J~i^^, semce, does not even
suggest the thought of war.

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

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

At a subsequent period we know (1 Mace. ii.
34-38) that the scruple existed and was acted on
with most calamitous effects. Those efTects led
(1 Mace. ii. 41) to determining that action in self-
defense was lawful on the Sabbath, initiatory at-
tack not. The reservation was, it must be thought.

SABBATH

nearly as great a misconception of the instituti^
as the overruled scruple. Certainly warfare has ,
nothing to do with the servile labor or the worldly
business contemplated in the Fourth Command-
ment, and is, as regards religious observance, a law
to itself. Yet the scruple, like many other scruples,
proved a convenience, and under the Roman Em-
pire the Jews procured exemption from military
service by means of it. It was not, however, with-
out its evils. In tlie siege of Jerusalem by Pom-
pey (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 4), as well as in the final one
by Titus, the Romans took advantage of it, and,
abstaining from attack, prosecuted on the Sabbath,
without molestation from the enemy, such works as
enabled them to renew the assault with increased
resources.

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

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

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

Next, it is clear that individual offerings were
not breaches of the Sabbath ; and from this doubt-
less came the feasts of the rich on that day, which
were sanctioned, as we have seen, by our Saviour's
attendance on one such. It was, we may be pretty
sure, a feast on a sacrifice, and therefore a religious
act. All around the giver, the poor as well as
others, were admitted to it. Yet further, in "cases
of illness, and in any, even the remotest danger,"
the prohibitions of work were not held to apply.
The general principle was that " the Sabbath is de-
livered into your hand, not you into the hand of
the Sabbath" (comp. Mark ii. 27, 28).

We have no ground for supposing that anything
like the didactic institutions of the synagogue
formed part of the original observance of the Sab-
bath. Such institutions do not come into being
while the matter to which they relate is itself only
in process of formation. Expounding the Law
presumes the completed existence of the Law, and
the removal of the living lawgiver. The assertion
of the Talnmd that " Moses ordained to the Israel-

a In this light the Sabbath has found a champion
in one who would not, we suppose, have paid it much
respect in its theological character; we mean no less

a person than M.
Dimanche),

Proudhon {Be la Celebration

SABBATH

ites that they should read the Law on the Sabhath-
days, the feasts, and the new moons," in itself im-
probable, is utterly unsupported by the Penta-
teuch. The rise of such custom in after times is
explicable enoujjh. [Synagogue.] But from an
early period, if not, as is most probable, from the
very institution, occupation with holy themes was
rei^arded as an essential part of the observance of
the Sabbath. It would seem to have been aii
habitual practice to repair to a prophet on that
day, in order, it nuist be presumed, to listen to his
teachin<f (2 K. iv. 23). Certain Psalms too, c. fj.
the J)2d, were composed for the Sabbath, and
probably used in private as well as in the Taber-
nacle. At a later period we come upon precepts
that on the Sabbath the mind should be uplifted
to high and holy themes — to (Jod, his character,
his revelations of Himself, his mighty works.
Still the thoughts with which the day was in-
vested were ever thoughts, not of restriction, but
of freedom and of joy. Such indeed would seem,
from Neh. viii. 9-12, to have been essential to the
notion of a iioly day. We have more than once
pointed out that pleasure, as such, was never con-
sideretl by the Jews a breach of the Sabbath ; and
their practice in this respect is often animadverted
on by the early Christian Fathers, who taunt them
with abstaining on that day only from what is
good and useful, but indidging in dancing and
hixury. Some of the heathen, indeed, such as
Tacitus, imagined that the Sabbath was kept by
thejn as a fast, a mistake which might have arisen
from their abstinence from cookery on th.it day,
and perhaps, as Ileylin conjectures, from their
postponement of their meals till the more solemn
services of religion had been performed. But
there can be no doubt that it was kept as a feast,
and the phrase liixiis Snbbntanus, which we find
in Sidonius Apollinaris (i. 2), and which has been
thought a proverbial one, illustrates the mode in
which they celebnited it in the early centuries
of our era. The following is Augustine's descrip-
tion of their practice: " Kcce hodiernus dies Sab-
bati est: hunc in priesenti tempore otic quodam
corporaliter languido et fluxo et luxurioso celebrant
Judaei. Vacant enim ad nugas, et cuni Deus pras-
ceperit Sabbatnm, illi in his quae Deus prohibet
exercent Sabbatum. Vacatio nostra a malis operi-
bus, vacatio illorum a bonis operibus est. Melius
est enim arare quam saltare. Illi ab opere bono
vacant, ab opere nug:itono non vacant" (Aug.
Enarr. in Psalmos, Ps. xci. : see, too, Aug. De
decern Chordis, iii. 3; Chrysost. Homil. I., De
Lnzaro ; and other references given by Bingham,
£ccl. Ant. lib. xx. cap. ii.). And if we take what
alone is in the Law, we shall find nothing to be
counted absolutely obligatory but rest, cessation
from labor. Now, as we have more than once
had occasion to observe, rest, cessation from labor,
cannot in the waking moments mean avoidance of
all action. This, therefore, would be the question
respecting the scope and purpose of the Sabbath
which would always demand to be devoutly con-
sidered and intelligently answered — what is truly
rest, what is that cessation from labor which is
really Sabbatical? And it is plain that, in ap-
plication and in detail, the answer to this must
almost indefinitely vary with men's varying cir-
cumstances, habits, education, and familiar asso-
ciations.

We have seen then, that, for whomsoever else the
provision was intended, the chosen race were in

SABBATH 2T6B

possession of an ordinance, whereby neither a man's
time nor his property could be considered abso-
lutely his own, the seventh of each week being-
holy to God, and dedicated to rest after the pattern
of God's rest, and giving equal rights to all. We
have also seen that this provision was the tonic to
a chord of Sabbatical observance, through which
the same great principles of (Jod's claim and so-
ciety's, on every man's time and every man's prop-
erty, were extended and developed. Of the Sab-
batical year, indeed, and of the year of Jubilee,
it may be questioned whether they were ever
persistently observed, the only indications that we
possess of Hebrew practice respecting them being
the exemption from tribute during the former ac-
corded to the Jews by Alexander, to which we have
already referred, and one or two others, all, how-
ever, after the Captivity. [Sabbatical Year;
Year of Jubilee.]

But no doubt exists that the weekly Sabbath
was always partially, and in the Pharisaic and sub-
sequent times very strictly, however mistakenly,
observed.

We have hitherto viewed the Sabbath merely as
a Mosaic ordinance. It remains to ask whether,
first, there be indications of its having been pre-
viously known and oliserved ; and, secondly, whether
it have an universal scope and authority over all
men.

The former of these questions is usually ap-
proached with a feeling of its being connected with
the latter, and perhaps therefore with a bias in
favor of the view which the questioner thinks will
support his opinion on the latter. It seems, how-
ever, to us, that we may dismiss any anxiety as to
the results we may arrive at concerning it. No
doubt, if we see strong reason for thinking that the
Sabbath had a pre-^Iosaic existence, we see some-
thing in it that has more than a Mosaic character
and scope. But it might have had such without
having an universal authority, unless we are pre-
pared to ascribe that to the prohibition of eatinjf
i)lood or things strangled. And again, it might
have originated in the Law of Moses, and yet
possess an universally human scope, and an au-
thority over all men and through all time. Which-
ever way, therefore, the second of our questions
is to be determined, we may easily approach the
first without anxiety.

The first and chief argument of those who
maintain that the Sabbath was known before
Moses, is the reference to it in Gen. ii. 2, 3. This
is considered to represent it as coeval with man^
being instituted at the Creation, or at least, as
Lightfoot views the matter, immediately upon the
Fall. This latter opinion is so entirely without
rational ground of any kind that we may dismiss
it at once. But the whole argument is very pre-
carious. We have no materials for ascertaining or
even conjecturing, which was put forth first, the
record of the Creation, or the Fourth Command-
ment. If the latter, then the reference to the
Sabbath in the former is abundantly natural. Had,
indeed, the Hebrew tongue the variety of preterite
tenses of the Greek, the words in Genesis might
require careful consideration in that regard ; but as
the case is, no light can be had from grammar;
and on the supposition of these being written after
the Fourth Commandment, their absence, or that
of any equivalent to them, would be really mar-
velous.

The next indication of a pre-Mosaic Sabbath has

2764 SABBATH

been found in Gen. iv. 3, where we read that " in
process of time it came to pass that Cain brought
of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the
Lord." The words rendered in process of time
mean literally " at the end of days," and it is con-
tended that they designate a fixed period of days,
probably the end of a week, the seventh or Sab-
bath-day. Again, the division of time into weeks
seems recognized in Jacob's courtship of Rachel
(Gen. xxix. 27, 28). Indeed the large recognition
of that division from the earliest time is considered
a proof that it must have had an origin above
and independent of local and accidental circum-
stances, and been imposed on man at the beginning
from above. Its arbitrary and factitious character
is appealed to in further confirmation of this. The
gacredness of the seventh day among the Egyptians,
as recorded by Herodotus, and the well-known
words of Hesiod respecting it, have long been cited
among those who adopt this view, though neither
of them in reality gives it the slightest support.
Lastly, the opening of the Fourth Commandment,
the injunction to remember the Sabbath-day, is
appealed to as proof that that day was already
known.

It is easy to see that all this is but a precarious
foundation on which to build. It is not clear that
the words in Gen. iv. 3 denote a fixed division of
time of any sort. Those in Gen. xxix. obviously do,
but carry us no further than proving that the week
was known and recognized by Jacob and Laban;
though it must be admitted that, in the case of time
so divided, sacred rites would probably be celebrated
on a fixed and statedly recurring day. The argu-
ment from the prevalence of the weekly division of
time would require a greater approach to univer-
sality in such practice than the facts exhibit, to
make it a cogent one. That division was unknown
to the ancient Greeks and Romans, being adopted
by the latter people from the Egyptians, as must
be inferred from the well-known passage of Dion
Cassius (xxxvii. 18, 19), at a period in his own
time comparatively recent; while of the Egyptians
themselves it is thought improbable that they were
acquainted with such division in early times. The
sacredness of the seventh day mentioned by Hesiod,
is obviously that of the seventh day, not of the
week, but of the month. And even after the
weekly division was established, no trace can be
found of anything resembling the Hebrew Sab-
bath.

While the injunction in the Fourth Command-
ment to remember the Sabbath-day may refer only
to its previous institution in connection with the
gathering of manna, or may be but the natural
precept to keep in mind the rule about to be de-
livered — a phrase natural and continually recur-
ring in the intercourse of life, as, for example, be-
tween parent and child — on the other hand, the
perplexity of the Israelites respecting the double
supply of manna on the sixth day (Ex. xvi. 22)
leads us to infer that the Sabbath for which such
extra supply was designed was not then known to
them. Moreover the language of Ezekiel (xx.)
seems to designate it as an ordinance distinctively
Hebrew and Mosaic.

We cannot then, from the uncertain notices
which we possess, infer more than that the weekly
division of time was known to the Israelites and

■ others before the Law of Moses. [Week.] There
is probability, though not more, in the opinion of

• Grotius, that the seventh day was deemed sacred

SABBATH

to religious observance; but that the Sabbatical
observance of it, the cessation from labor, was
superinduced on it in the wilderness.

But to come to our second question, it by no
means follows, that even if the Sabbath were no
older than Moses, its scope and obligation are lim-
ited to Israel, and that itself belongs only to the
obsolete enactments of the Levitical Law. That
law contains two elements, the code of a particular
nation, and commandments of human and uni-
versal character. For it must not be forgotten
that the Hebrew was called out from the world,
not to live on a narrower but a far wider footing
than the children of earth ; that he was called out
to be the true man, bearing witness for the destiny,
exhibiting the aspect, and realizing the blessedness,
of true manhood. Hence, we can always see, if
we have a mind, the difference between such feat-
ures of his Law as are but local and temporary,
and such as are human and universal. To which
class belongs the Sabbath, viewed simply in itself,
is a question which will soon come before us, and
one which does not appear hard to settle. Mean-
while, we must inquire into the case as exhibited
by Scripture.

And here we are at once confronted with the
fact that the command to keep the Sabbath forms
part of the Decalogue. And that the Decalogue
had a rank and authority above the other enact-
ments of the Law, is plain to the most cursory
readers of the Old Testament, and is indicated by
its being written on the two Tables of the Cove-
nant. And though even the Decalogue is affected
by the New Testament, it is not so in the way
of repeal or obliteration. It is raised, trans-
figured, glorified there, but itself remains in its
authority and supremacy. Not to refer just now
to our Saviour's teaching (Matt. xix. 17-19), of
which it might be alleged that it was delivered
when, and to the persons over whom, the Old Law
was in force — such passages as Rom. xiii. 8, 9,
and Eph. vi. 2, 3, seem decisive of this. In some
way, therefore, the Fourth Commandment has an
authority over, and is to be obeyed by. Christians,
though whether in the letter, or in some large
spiritual sense and scope, is a question which still
remains.

The phenomena respecting the Sabbath pre-
sented by the New Testament are, 1st, the frequent
reference to it in the four gospels ; and 2dly, the
silence of the epistles, with the exception of one
place (Col. ii. 16, 17), where its repeal would
seem to be asserted, and perhaps one other (Heb.
iv. 9).

1st. The references to it in the four gospels are,
it needs not be said, numerous enough. We have
already seen the high position which it took in the
minds of the Rabbis, and the strange code of pro-
hibitions which they put forth in connection with
it. The consequence of this was, that no part of
our Saviour's teaching and practice would seem to
have been so eagerly and narrowly watched as that
which related to the Sabbath. He seems even to
have directed attention to this, thereby intimating
surely that on the one hand the misapprehension,
and on the other the true fulfillment of the Sab-
bath were matters of deepest concern. We have
already seen the kind of prohibitions against which
both his teaching and practice were directed ; and
his two pregnant declarations, " The Sabbath was
made for man, not man for the Sabbath," and
"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,"

surely ^1

SABBATH

exhibit to us the I-iiw of the Sabbath as human
and universal. The former sets it forth as a priv-
ilege and a blessing, and were we therefore to sup-
pose it absent from the provisions of the covenant
of grace, we must suppose that covenant to have
stinted ma!i of something that was made for him,
something that conduces to his well-being. The
latter wonderfully exalts the Sabbath by referring
it, even as do the record of creation and the
Fourth ('ommandment, to God as its archetype;
and in showing us that the repose of God does
not exclude work — inasmuch as God opens his
hand daily and filleth all things living with plen-
teousness — shows us that the rest of the Sabbath
does not exclude action, which would be but a
death, but only that week-day action which requires
to be wound up in a rest that shall be after the
pattern of his, who, though He has rested from
all the work that He hath made, yet " worketh
hitherto."

2dly. The epistles, it must be admitted, with
the exception of one place, and perhaps another to
which we have already referred, are silent on the
subject of the Sabbath. No rules for its observ-
ance are ever given by the A|X)stles — its violation
is never denounced by them. Sabbath -breakers
are never included in any list of offenders. Col.
ii. 16, 17, seems a far stronger argument for the
abolition of the Sabbath in the Christian dispensa-
tion than is furnished by Heb. iv. 9 for its con-
tinuance; and while the first day of the week is
more than once referred to as one of religious
observance, it is never identified with the Sabbath,
nor are any prohibitions issued in coimection with
the former, while the omission of the Saljbath from
the list of " necessary things " to be observed by
the Gentiles (Acts xv. 29) shows that they were
regarded by the Apostles as free from obligation in
this matter.

When we turn to the monuments which we
possess of the early Church, we find ourselves on
the whole carried in the same direction. The
seventh day of the week continued, indeed, to be
observed, being kept as a feast by the greater part
of the Church, and as a fast from an early period
by that of Kome, and one or two other churches
of the West; but not as obligatory on Christians
in the same way as on Jews. The Council of
I^aodicea prohibited all scruple about working on
it; and there was a very genenil admission among
the early Fathers that Christians did not Sabba-
tize in the letter.

Again, the observance of the Ixtrd's Day as a
Sabbath would have been well-nigh impossible to
the majority of Christians in the first ages. The
slave of the heathen master, and the child of the
heathen father, could neither of them have the
control of his own conduct in such a matter; while
the Christian in general would have been at once
betniyed and dragged into notice if he was found
abstaining from lalwr of every kind, not on the
seventh but the first day of the week. And yet
it is clear that many were enabled without blame
to keep their Christianity long a secret ; nor does
there seem to have been any obligation to divulge
it, until heathen interrogation or the order to
sacrifice dragged it into daylight.

When the early Fathers speak of the Lord's
Day, they sometimes, perhaps, by comparing, con-
nect it with the Sabbath : but we have never found
a passage, previous to the conversion of Constan-
tine, prohibitory of any work or occupation on the

SABBATH

2T65'

former, and any such, did it exist, would have
been in a great measure nugatory, for the reasons
just alleged. [Lord's Day.] After Constantine
things become different at once. His celebrated
edict prohibitory of judicial proceedings on the
lord's Day wa.s probably dictated by a wish to
give the great Christian festival as much honor as
was enjoyed by those of the heathen, rather than
by any reference to the Sabbath or the Fourth
Commandment; but it was followed by several
which extended the prohibition to many other oc-
cupations, and to many forms of pleasure held
innocent on ordinary days. When this l)ecame the
case, the Christian Church, which ever believed the
Decalogue, in some sense, to be of universal obliga-
tion, could not but feel that she was enabled to
keep the Fourth Commandment in its letter as well
as its spirit; that she had not lost the type even
in possessing the antitype ; that the great law of
week-day work and seventh-day rest, a law so
generous and so ennobling to humanity at large,
was still in operation. True, the name Sabbath
was always used to denote the seventh, as that
of the lord's Day to denote the first, day of the
week, which latter is nowhere habitually called the
Sabbath, so far as we are aware, except in Scotland
and by the English Puritans. But it was surely
impossible to observe both the rx)rd'8 Day, as was
done by Christians after Constantine, and to read
the Fourth Commandment, without connecting the
two; and, seeing that such was to be the practice
of the developed Church, we can understand how
the silence of the N. T. epistles, and even the
strong words of St. Paul (Col. ii. 16, 17), do not
impair the human and universal scope of the
Fourth Commandment, exhibited so strongly in the
very nature of the Law, and in the teaching re-
specting it of Him who came not to destroy the
Uw, but to fulfill.

In the East, indeed, where the seventh day of
the week was long kept as a festival, that would
present itself to men's minds as the Sabbath, and
the first day of the week would appear rather in
its distinctively Christian character, and as of
apostolical and ecclesiastical origin, than in con-
nection with the old Law. But in the West the
seventh day was kept for the most part as a fast,
and that for a reason merely Christian, namely, in
commemoration of our Lord's lying in the sepul-
chre throughout that day. Its observance therefore
would not obscure the aspect of the I>ord's Day as
that of hebdomadal rest and refreshment, and as
consequently the prolongation of the Sabbath in
the essential character of that benignant ordinance;
and, with some variation, therefore, of verbal state-
ment, a connection between the Fourth Command-
ment and the first day of the week (together, as
should be remembered, with the other festivals
of the Church), came to be perceived and pro-
claimed.

Attention has recently been called, in coimection
with our subject, to a circumstance which is im-
portant, the adoption by the Roman world of the
Egyptian week almost contemporaneously with the
founding of the Christian Church. Dion Cassius
speaks of that adoption as recent, and we are
therefore warranted in conjecturing the time of
Hadrian as about that wherein it must have estab-
lished itself. Here, then, would seem a signal
Providential preparation for providing the people
of God with a literal Sabbatisraus; for prolonging
in the Christian kingdom that great institution

2766

SABBATH

which, whether or not historically older than the
Mosaic Law, is yet in its essential character adapted
to all mankind, a witness for a pei'sonal Creator
and Sustainer of the universe, and for his call to
men to model their work, their time, and their
lives, on his pattern.

Were we prepared to embrace an exposition
which has been given of a remarkable passage
already referred to (Heb. iv. 8-10), we should find
it singularly illustrative of the view just suggested.
The argument of the passage is to this effect, that
tlie rest on which Joshua entered, and into which
he made Israel to enter, cannot be the true and
final rest, inasmuch as the Psalmist long after-
wards speaks of the entering into that rest as still
future and contingent. In ver. 9 we have the
words "there remaineth, therefore, a rest for the
people of God." Now it is important that through-
out the passage the word for rest is Kardrravais,
and that in the words just quoted it is changed
into (Ta^^aTi<Tjx6si which certainly means the
keeping of rest, the act of sabbatizing rather than
the objective rest itself. It has accordingly been
suggested that those words are not the author's
conclusion — which is to be found in the form of
thesis in the declaration " we which have believed
do enter into rest" — but a parenthesis to the
effect that "to the people of (iod," the Christian
community, there remaineth, there is left, a sab-
battzing, the great change that has passed upon
them and the mighty elevation to which they have
been brought as on other matters, so as regards the
rest of God revealed to them, still leaving scope
for and justifying the practice." This exposition
is in keeping with the general scope of the Epistle
to the Hebrews ; and the passage thus viewed will
seem to some minds analogous to xiii. 10. It is
given by Owen, and is elaborated with great in-
genuity' by Dr. Wardlaw in his Discourses on t/ie
Sabbath. It will not be felt fatal to it that more
than 300 years should have passed before the
Cliurch at large was in a situation to discover the
heritage that had been preserved to her, or to
enter on its enjoyment, when we consider how de-
velopment, in all matters of ritual and ordinance,
must needs be the law of any living body, and
much more of one which had to struggle from
its birth with the impeding forces of a heathen
empire, frequent persecution, and an unreclaimed
society. In such case was the early Church, and
therefore she might well have to wait for a Con-
stantine before she could fully open her eyes to
the fact that sabbatizing was still left to her;
and her members might well be permitted not to
see the truth in any steady or consistent way even
then.

The objections, however, to this exposition are
many and great, one being, that it has occurred
to so few among the great commentators who have
labored on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Chrysostom
(m loc.) denies that there is any reference to heb-
domadal sabbatizing. Nor have we found any
commentators, besides the two just named, who
admit that there is such, with the single exception
of Flbrard. Dean Alford notices the interpretation
only to condemn it, while Dr. Hessey gives another,
and that the usual explanation of the verse, sug-
gesting a sufficient reason for the change of word

a According to this exposition the words of ver.
10, " for he that hath entered," etc. are referred to
Christ.

SABBATH-DAY'S JOURNEY

from KaTairavais to aafi^aTia/iSs. It would not
have been right, however, to have passed it over
in this article without notice, as it relates to a
passage of Scripture in which Sabbath and Sab-
batical ideas are markedly brought forward.

It would be going beyond the scope of this arti-
cle to trace the history of opinion on the Sabbath
in the Christian Church. Dr. Hessey, in his Bnmp-
ion Lecttires, has sketched and distinguished every
variety of doctrine which has been or still is main-
tained on the subject.

The sentiments and practice of, the Jews subse-
quent to our Saviour's time have been already re-
ferred to. A curious account — taken from Bux-
torf, De Synag. — of their superstitions, scruples,
and prohibitions, will be found at the close of the
first part of Heylin's Hist, of the Sabbath. Cal-
met (art. " Sabbath ") gives an interesting sketch
of their family practices at the beginning and end
of the day. And the estimate of the Sabbath, its
uses, and its blessings, which is formed by the more
spiritually minded Jews of the present day may be
inferred from some striking remarks of Dr. Kalisch
{Comm. on Exodus), p. 273, who winds up with
quoting a beautiful passage from the late Sirs.
Horatio Montefiore's work, A Ftio Words to the
Jews.

Finally, M. Proudhon's striking pamphlet, De
la Celebration du Dimanche consideree .<ioiis lea
rapports de V Hygiene publique, de la Morale, dea
relations de Famille et de Cite, Paris, 1850, may
be studied with great advantage. His remarks
(p. 67) on the advantages of the precise propor-
tion established, six days of work to one of rest,
and the inconvenience of any other that could be
arranged, are well worth attention.

The word Sabbath seems sometimes to denote a
week in the N. T. Hence, by the Hebrew usage
of reckoning time by cardinal numbers, eV ri} /jit^
rwv aa^^aTWf, means on the first day of the
week. The Rabbis have the same phraseology,
keeping, however, the word Sabbath in the sin--
gular.

On the phrase of St. Luke, vi. 1, eV tcU ffafifidrtfi
SevTepoTTpwTw, see Sabbatical Yeak.

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

Literature. — Critici Sacri, on Exod. ; Heylin's
Hist, of the Sabbath ; Selden, De Jure Natur. et
Gent. ; Buxtorf, De Synag. ; Barrow, ExjHts. of
the Decalogue ; Paley, Moral and Political Philos-
ophy, v. 7; James, On the Sacraments and Sab-
bath ; Whately's Thoughts on the Sabbath ; Ward-
law, On the Sabbath ; Maurice, On the Sabbath ;
Michaelis, Laws of Moses, arts, cxciv.-vi., clxviii.;
Oehler, in Herzog's Real-Encykl. "Sabbath";
Winer, Realworterbuch, "Sabbath"; Biihr, Syrn-
bolik des Mas. Cult. vol. ii. bk. iv. ch. 11 , § 2 ; Ka-
li.sch, IJistorical and Critical Commentary on 0.
T., in Exod. XX. ; Proudhon, De la Celebration
du Dimanche ; and especially Dr. Hessey's Sun-
day ; the Bampton Lecture for 1880. F. G.

* flistarical Sketch of the Christian Sabbath,
by Rev. L. Coleman, Bibl. Sacra, i. 52G-.552, and
Change of the Sabbath from the Seventh to the
First' Day of the Week,\y John S. Stone, D. D.,
Theol. Eclectic, iv. 542-570, are valual)le articles
on this subject. The literature is given with great
fullness in R. Cox's Literature of the Sabbath
Question, 2 vols., Edinb. 1865. H.

SABBATH-DAY'S JOURNEY (2ai8

SABBATH-DAY'S JOURNEY

Pdrov 656sy Acts i. 12). On occasion of a viola-
tion of the connnandnaent by certain of the people
who went to look for manna on the seventh day,
Moses enjoined every man to " abide in his place,"
and forbade any man to »'go out of his place" on
tliat day (Ex. xvi. 2:»). It seems natural to look
on this as a mere enactment />7"0 re natd, and hav-
ing no bearing on any state of affairs subsequent to
the journey through the wilderuess and the daily
gathering of nuinna. Whether the earlier Hebrews
did or did not regard it thus, it is not easy to say.
Nevertheless, the natural inference from 2 K. iv. 23
is against the supposition of such a pi-oliibition be-
ing known to the spokesman, Klisha almost cer-
tainly living — as may be seen from the whole nar-
rative — nuich more than a Sabbath-day's journey
from Shunem. Heylin infers from the incidents of
David's flight from Saul, and Hijah's from Jezebel,
that neither felt bound by such a limitation. Their
situation, however, being one of extremity, cannot
be safely argued from. In after times the precept
in Ex. xvi. was undoubtedly viewed as a permanent
law. But as some departure from a man's own
pLxce was unavoidable, it was thought necessary to
determine the allowable amount, which was fixed
at 2,000 paces, or about six furlongs, from the wall
of the city.

Though such an enactment may have proceeded
from an erroneous view of Ex. xvi. 29, it is by no
means so sujierstitious and unworthy on the face of
it as are most of the Rabbinical rules and prohibi-
tions respecting the Sabbath-day. In the case of a
general law, like that of the Sabbath, some author-
ity must settle the application in details, and such
an authority " the Scril)es and Pharisees sitting in
Moses' seat " were entitled to exercise. It is plain
that the limits of the Sabbath-day's journey nmst
have been a great check on the profimation of the
day in a country where business was entirely agri-
cultural or pastoral, and must have secured to " the
ox and the ass " the rest to which by the Law they
were entitled.

Our Saviour seems to refer to this law in warn-
ing the disciples to pray that their flight from Je-
rusalem in the time of its judgment* should not
be "on the Sabbath-day " (Matt. xxiv. 20). The
Christians of Jerusalem would not, as in the case
of Gentiles, feel free from the restrictions on jour-
neying on that day ; nor would their situation en-
able them to comply with the forms whereby such
journeying when necessary was sanctified; nor
would assistance from those around be procurable.

The permitted distance seems to have been
grounded on the space to be kept between the Ark
and the people (.Tosh. iii. 4) in the wilderness, which
tradition said was that between the Ark and the
tents. To repair to the Ark being, of course, a
duty on the Sabbath, the walking to it was no vio-
lation of the day ; and it thus was taken as the meas-
ure of a lawful Sabbath-day's journey. We find the
same distance given as the circumference outside the
walls of the Ixvitical cities to be counted as their
suburbs (Xum. xxxv. 5). The terminus a quo was
thus not a man's own house, but the wall of the
city where he dwelt, and thus the amount of lawful
Sabbath-day's journeying must therefore have va-
ried greatly ; the movements of a Jew in one of the
small cities of his own land being restricted indeed
when compared with those of a Jew in Alexandria,
Antioch, or Rome.

When a man was obliged to go farther than a
Sabbath-day's journey, ou some good and allow-

SABBATICAL YEAR 2767

able ground, it was incumbent on him on the even-
ing before to furnish himself with food enough for
two meals. He was to sit down and eat at the ap-
pointed distance, to bury what he had left, and ut-
ter a thanksgiving to God for the appointed bound-
ary. Next morning he was at liberty to make
this point his terminus a quo.

The Jewish scruple to go more than 2,000 paceiB
from his city on the Sabbath is referred to by
Origen, wepl apxcHy, iv. 2; by Jerome, ad Algd-
siam, qusest. 10 ; and by GLcumenius — with
some apparent difference between them as to the
measurement. Jerome gives Akiba, Simeon, and
Hillel, as the authorities for the lawful distance.

F. G.

SABBATHE'US i^afifiaralos: Sabbathceus).
Shabbkthai the Levite (1 Esdr. ix. 14; comp.
Ezr. X. 15).

SABBATICAL YEAR. As each seventh
day and each seventh month were holy, so was each
seventh year, by the Mosaic code. We first en-
counter this law in Ex. xxiii. 10, 11, given in
words corresponding to those of the Fourth Com-
mandment, and followed (ver. 12) by the reert-
forcement of that commandment. It is impossible
to read the passage and not feel that the Sabbath
Day and the Sabbatical Year are parts of one gen-
eral law.

The commandment is, to sow and reap for six
years, and to let the land rest on the seventh, "that
the poor of thy people may eat; and what they
leave the beasts of the field shall eat." It is added,
'* In like manner shalt thou deal with thy vineyard
and thy oliveyard."

We meet next with the enactment in I-.ev. xxv.
2-7, and finally in Deut. xv., in which last place
the new fejiture presents itself of the seventh year
being one of release to debtors.

When we combine these several notices, we find
that every seventh year the land was to have
rest to enjoy her Sabbaths. Neither tillage nor
cultivation of any sort was to be practiced. The
spontaneous growth of the soil was not to be
reaped by the owner, whose rights of property
were in abeyance. All were to have their share in
the gleanings : the poor, the stran<;er, and even the
cattle.

This singular institution has the aspect, at first
sight, of total impracticability. This, however,
wears off" when we consider that in no year waa
the owner allowed to reap the whole harvest (Ler.
xix. 9, xxiii. 22). Unless, therefore, the remainder
was gleaned very carefully, there may easily have
been enough left to ensure such spontaneous de-
posit of seed as in the fertile soil of Syria would
produce some amount of crop in the succeeding
year, while the vines and olives would of course
yield their fruit of themselves. Aforeover, it is
clear that the owners of land were to lay by com
in previous years for their own and their families*
wants. This is the unavoidable inference from
l^v. xxv. 20-22. And though the right of
property was in abeyance during the Sabbatical
year, it has been suggested that this only applied
to the fields, and not to the gardens attached to
houses.

The claiming of debts was unlawful during this
year, as we learn from Deut. xv. The exceptions
laid down are in the case of a foreigner, and that
of there being no poor in the land. This latter,
however, it is straightway said, is what will never

2768 SABBATICAL YEAR

happen. But though debts might not be claimed,
it is not said that they might not be vokintarily
paid ; and it has been questioned whether the re-
lease of the seventh year was final or merely lasted
through the year. This law was virtually abro-
gated in later times by the v>ell-kuovfn pi-osbol (^ of
the great Hillel, a permission to the judges to al-
low a creditor to enforce his claim whenever he re-
quired to do so. The formula is given in the
Mishna (Sheviifh, 10, 4).

The release of debtors during the Sabbatical
year must not be confounded with the release of
slaves on the seventh year of their service. The
two are obviously distinct — the one occurring
at one fixed time for all, while the other must
have varied with various families, and with various
slaves.

The spirit of this law is the same as that of the
weekly Sabbath. Both have a beneficent tendency,
limiting the rights and checking the sense of prop-
erty; the one puts in God's claims on time, the
other on the land. The land shall " keep a Sab-
bath unto the Ix)rd." " The laud is mine."

There may also have been, as Kalisch conjec-
tures, an eye to the benefit which would accrue to
the land from lying fallow every seventh year, in a
time when the rotation of crops was unknown.

The Sabbatical year opened in the Sabbatical
month, and the whole Law was to be read every
such year, during the Feast of Tabernacles, to the
assembled people. It was thus, like the weekly
Sabbath, no mere negative rest, but was to be
marked by high and holy occupation, and con-
nected with sacred reflection and sentiment.

At the completion of a week of Sabbatical years,
the Sabbatical scale received its completion in the
year of Jubilee. For the question whether that
was identical with the seventh Sabbatical year, or
was that which succeeded it. *. e. whether the year
of Jubilee fell every forty-ninth or every fiftieth
year, see Jubilee, Yeah of.

The next question that presents itself regarding
the Sabbatical year relates to the time when its ob-
servance became obligatory. It has been inferred
from I^viticus xxv. 2, " When ye come into the
land which I give you, then shall the land keep a
Sabbath unto the Lord," that it was to be held by
the people on the first year of their occupation of
Canaan ; but this mere literalism gives a result in
contradiction to the words which immediately fol-
low : »' Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six
years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in
the fruit thereof; but in the seventh year shall be
a Sabbath of rest unto the land." It is more rea-
sonable to suppose, with the best Jewish authorities,
that the law became obligatory fourteen years after
the first entrance into the Promised Land, the con-
quest of which took seven years and the distribu-
tion seven more.

A further question arises. At whatever period
the obedience to this law ought to have com-
menced, was it in point of fact obeyed ? This is
an inquiry which reaches to more of the Mosaic
statutes than the one now before us. It is, we ap-
prehend, rare to see the whole of a code in full op-
eration; and the phenomena of Jewish history pre-
vious to the Captivity present us with no such

■a T''12D*1~1D = probably wpo/SovA^ or irpoo-/3oA^,
For this and other curious speculations on the ety-
mology of the word, see Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. 1807

SABTAH

spectacle. In the threatenings contained in Ley.
xxvi., judgments on the violation of the Sabbatical
year are particularly contemplated (vv. 33, 34);
and that it was greatly if not quite neglected ap-
pears from 2 Chr. xxxvi. 20, 21: " Them that es-
caped from the sword carried he away to Babylon ;
where they were servants to him and his sons until
the reign of the kingdom of Persia: to fulfill the
word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until
the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths ; for as long as
she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill three-
score and ten years." Some of the Jewish com-
mentators have inferred from this that their fore-
fathers had neglected exactly seventy Sabbatical
years. If such neglect was continuous, the law
must have been disobeyed throughout a period oi
490 years, i. e. through nearly the whole duration
of the monarchy; and as there is nothing hi the
previous history leading to the inference that the
people were more scrupulous then, we must look to
the return from Captivity for indications of the Sab-
batical year being actually observed. Then we know
the former neglect was replaced by a punctilious at-
tention to the Law; and as its leading feature, the
Sabbath, began to be scrupulously reverenced, so
we now find traces of a like observance of the Sab-
batical year. We read (1 Mace. vi. 49) that "they
came out of the city, because they had no victuals
there to endure the siege, it being a year of rest to
the land." Alexander the Great is said to have
exempted the Jews from tribute during it, since it
was unlawful for them to sow seed or reap harvest
then ; so, too, did Julius Caesar (Joseph. Ant. xiv.
10, § 6). Tacitus {Hist. lib. v. 2, § 4), having
mentioned the observance of the Sabbath by the
Jews, adds: " Dein blandienti inertia septimum
quoque annum ignavise datum." And St. Paul, in
reproaching the Galatians with their Jewish tend-
encies, taxes them with observing years as well as
days and months and times (Gal. iv. 10), from
which we must infer that the teachers who com-
municated to them those tendencies did more or
less the like themselves. Another allusion in the
N. T. to the Sabbatical year is perhaps to be found
in the phrase, eV oa^^aTCf SevTepoirpdoTcp (Luke
vi. 1). Various explanations have been given of
the term, but one of the most probable is that it
denotes the first Sabbath of the second year in the
cycle (Wieseler, quoted by Alford, vol. i.).

F. G.
SABBE'US ([Vat.] :Zafifiaias; [Rom. Aid.]
Alex. ^afi^a7os- Sameas), 1 Esdr. ix. 32. [She-
MAIAH, 14.]

SABE'ANS. [Seba; Sheba.]

SA'BI ([Vat. 2a)8ei77, joined with preceding
word; not] 2a)8eiV [see errata in Mai; Rom.
Aid.] Alex. •Sa^irt- Sabathen). " The children of
Pochereth of Zebaim" appear in 1 Esdr. v. 34
as "the sons of Phacareth, the sons of SabL"
[Sabie.]

* SA'BIE (3 syl.), the reading of the A. V.
ed. 1611 and other early editions in 1 Esdr. v. 34,
representing the Greek S.afifli, has been improperly
changed in later editions to Sabi. A.

SAB'TAH (nri5p, in 21 MSS. SHnttT,
Gen. x. 7; MPinp, 1 Chr. i. 9 [see below], A. V.
Sabta: 2a)3a0'o ; [Vat. in 1 Chr., Sahara:]
Sabatha). The third in order of the sons of Cush.
In accordance with the identifications of the settle-

SABTECHA

ments of the Cushites in the article Arabia and
elsewhere, Sabtah should be looked for along the
southern coast of Arabia. The writer has found
uo traces in Arab writers; but the statements of
Pliny (vi. 32, § 155, xii. 32), Ptolemy (vi. 7, p. 411),
and Anm. Ptripl. (27), respecting Sabbatha, Sa-
bota, or Sobotale, nietropohs of the Atraniitae
(probably the Chatramotitae), seem to point to a
trace of the tribe which descended from Sabtah,
always supposing that this city Sabbatha was not a
corruption or dialectic variation of Saba, Seba, or
Sheba. This point will be discussed under Siieba.
It is only necessary to remark here that the indi-
cations afforded by the Greek and Koman writers
of Arabian geography require very cautious hand-
ling, presenting, as they do, a mass of contradic-
tions and transparent ti-avellers' tales respecting
the unknown regions of Arabia the Happy, Arabia
Thurifera, etc. Ptolemy places Sabbatha in 77°
long. 16° 30' lat. It was an important city, con-
taining no less than sixty temples (Pliny, N. II.
vi. c. xxiii. § 32); it was also situate in the terri-
tory of king Elisarus, or Kleazus (comp. Anon.
Peripl. ap. Midler, Geocj. Min. pp.278, 279), sup-
posed by Fresnel to be identical with " Ascharides,"
or " Alascharissoun," in Arabic (Journ. Asiat.
Nouv. S<f'rie, x. 191). Winer thinks the identifi-
cation of Sabtah with Sabbatha, etc., to l)e prob-
able; and it is accepted by IJunsen {Bibeliverk, Gen.
X. and Adas). It certainly occupies a position in
which we should expect to find traces of Sabtah,
where are traces of Cushite tribes in very early
titues, on their way, as we hold, from their earher
colonies in Etliiopia to the Euphrates.

Gesenius, who sees in Cush only Ethiopia, " has
no doubt that Sabtah should be compared with 2a-
jBoT, 2aj8a, 2a/8at (see Strab. xvi. p. 770, Casaub. ;
Ptol. iv. 10), on the shore of the Arabian Gulf,
situated just where Arkiko is now, in the neigh-
borhood of which the Ptolemies huntetl elephants.
Amongst the ancient ti-anslators, Pseudojonathan

saw the true meaning, rendering it "^MIDD, for

which read ''MIDD, t. e. the Sembritae, whom
Strabo (loc. cit. p. 786) places in the same region.
Josephus {Ant. i. 6, § 1) understands il to b<- the
inhabitants of Astabora " (Gesenius, ed. Tregelles,
s. v.). Here the etymology of Sabtah is compared
plausibly with 2aj8aT; but when probabiUty is
against his being found in Ethiopia, etymology is
of small value, especially when it is remembered
that Sabat and its variations (Sabax, Sabai) may
be related to Seba,, which certainly was in Ethi-
opia. On the Kabbinical authorities which he
quotes we place no value. It only remains to add
that Michaelis {Suppl. p. 1712) removes Sabtah to
Ceuta opposite Gibraltar, called in Arabic Sebtah,

SACKBUT

276^

(comp. Marasid, s. v.); and that Bochart
{Phaleff, i. 114, 115, 252 fl'.), while he mentions
Sabbatha, prefers to place Sabtah near the western
shore of the Persian Gulf, with the Saphtha of
Ptolemy, the name also of an island in that gulf.

E. S. P.
SABTECHA, and SAB'TECHAH

(S^riDP [see above]: 2o)8o^oKa, 2e/3e0axa;
[Alex*, in Gen., ^a^aKaOa; Vat. in 1 Chr., 2€/3e-
KaOa'} Sabatnchn, Sabnthncha, Gen. x. 7, 1 Chr.
i. 9). The fifth in order of the sons of Cush,
whose settlements would probably be near the Per-
sian Gulf, where are those of Raaniah, the next

before him in the order of the Cushites. [Raa-
MAH, Dkdan, Sheba.] He has not been identi-
fied with any Arabic place or district, nor satis-
factorily with any name given by classical writers.
Bochart (who is followed by Bunseii, Bibeltv.^ Gen.
X. and Atlas) argues that he should be placed in
Carmauia, on the Persian shore of the gulf, com-
paring Sabtechah with the city of Samydace of
Steph. Byz. (2o/ii5aKTj or iZufivKaS-n of Ptol. vi.
8, 7). This etymology appears to be very far-
fetched. Gesenius merely says that Sabtechah is
the proper name of a district of Ethiopia, and adds

the reading of the Targ. Pseudojonathan C'HUDt,
Zingitani). E. S. P.

SA'CAR ("Iptp [hire^reioard]: Axdp; Alex.
2oxap= Sdchar). 1. A Hararite, fiither of Ahiam,
one of David's mighty men (1 Chr. xi. 35). In
2 Sam. xxiii. 33 he is called Shauar, but Ken-
nicott regards Sacar as the correct reading.

2. (2axap ; [Vat. 2a»x«P 5 Alex. 2axiap.])
The fourth son of Obed-edom (1 Chr. xxvi. 4).

SACKBUT (SD2P, Dan. Hi. 5; MDSb,
Dan. iii. 7, 10, 15: aafi^vKf]' snmhuca). The
rendering in the A. V. of the Chaldee sabbecd.
If this musical instrument be the same as the
Greek a-a/xfivKr] and Latin sainbuca^'^ the English
translation is entirely wrong. The sackbut was a
wind-instrument; the sambucn was played with
strings. Mr. Chappell says {Pop. Mas. i. 35),
" The sackbut was a bass tnnnpet with a slide, like
the modem trombone." It had a deep note ac-
cording to Drayton {PolyolbioH, iv. 365): —

" The hoboy, sagbut deep, recorder, and the flute."
The sambuca was a triangular instrument with
four or more strings played with the fingers.
According to Athenaeus (xiv. 633), Masurius de-
scrii)ed it as having a shrill tone; and luiphorion,
in his book on the Isthmian Games, said that it
was used by the Parthians and Troglodytes, and
had four strings. Its invention is attributed to
one Sambyx, and to Sibylla its first use (Athen.
xiv. 637). Juba, in the 4th book of his Thmtrical
History, says it was discovered in Syria, but Nean-
thes of Cyzicum, in the first book of the I/ours,
assigns it to the poet Ibycus of Khegium (Athen.
iv. 77). This last tradition is followed by Suidas,
who describes the sambuca as a kind of triangular
harp. That it was a foreign instrument is clear
from the statement of Strabo (x. 471), who says
its name is barbarous. Isidore of Seville {Orig.
iii. 20) appears to regard it as a wind instrument,
for he connects it with the sambucus, or elder, a
kind of light wood of which pipes were made.

The sambuca was early known at Rome, for
Plautus {Stich. ii. 2, 57) mentions the women who
played it {sambucce, or sambucislHoe, as they are
called in Livy, xxxix. 6). It was a favorite among
the Greeks (Polyb. v. 37), and the Rhodian women
appear to have been celebrated for their skill on
this instrument (Athen. iv. 129).

There was an engine called sambuca used in
siege operations, which derived its name from the
musical instrument, because, according to Athe-
naeus (xiv. 634), when raised it had the form of
a ship and a ladder combined in one.

W. A. W.

a Compare ambitbaia, from Syr. S^^IUS, abbUbcty
flute, where the m occupies the place of the

2770

SACKCLOTH

SACKCLOTH (ptt?: adnKos: saccvs). A
coarse texture, of a dark color, made of goats'
hair (Is. 1. 3; Rev. vi. 12), and resembling the
citiciwn of the Romans. It was used (1) for
making sacks, the same word describing both the
material and the article (Gen. xlii. 25; Lev. xi.
32; Josh. ix. 4); and (2) for making the rough
garments used by mourners, which were in extreme
cases worn next the skin (1 K. xxi. 27; 2 K. vi.
30; Job xvi. 15; Is. xxxii. 11), and this even by
females (Joel i. 8; 2 Mace iii. 19), but at other
times were worn over the coat or ceihoneih (Jon.
iii. 6) in lieu of the outer garment. The robe
probably resembled a sack in shape, and fitted close
to the person, as we may infer from the application
of the term chagar « to the process of putting it
on (2 Sam. iii. 31; Ez. vii. 18, <&c.). It was con-
fined by a girdle of similar material (Is. iii. 24).
Sometimes it was worn throughout the night (1 K.
xxi. 27). W. L. B.

SACRIFICE. The peculiar features of each
kind of sacrifice are referred to under their re-
spective heads : the object of this article will be : —

I. To examine the meaning and derivation of
the various words used to denote sacrifice in Scrip-
ture.

II. To examine the historical development of
sacrifice in the Old Testament.

III. To sketch briefly the theory of sacrifice,
as it is set forth both in the Old and New Testa-
ments, with especial reference to the Atonement
of Christ.

I. Of all the words used in reference to sacrifice,
the most general appear to be —

(ffl.) nn?D, minchah, from the obsolete root

nS^, "to give;" used in Gen. xxxii. 13, 20, 21,
of a gift from Jacob to Esau (LXX. Sa>pov); in 2
Sam. viii. 2, 6 {^(via), in 1 K. iv. 21 (SUpa), in 2
K. xvii. 4 (fiavad), of a tribute from a vassal
king; in Gen. iv. 3, 5, of a sacrifice generally
iSwpou and dva-ia, indifferently); and in Lev. ii.
1, 4, 5, 6, joined with the word korban, of an
unbloody sacrifice, or " meat-offering " (generally
hwpov Ouaia)- Its derivation and usage point to
that idea of sacrifice, which represents it as an
eucharistic gift to God our King.

(b.) ('J2"}p. korban, derived from the root ^"^p,
"to approach," or (in Hiphil) to "make to ap-
proach; " used with minchah in Lev. ii. 1, 4, 5, 6,
(LXX. Swpov 6v(ria), generally rendered Sa>pov
(see Mark vii. 11, Kopfiau, '6 iari Sapov) or npotr-
<p6pa. The idea of a gift hardly seems inherent
in the root; which rather points to sacrifice, as a
symbol of communion or covenant between God
and man.

(c.) (n^.Tj zebach^ derived from the root HD'^j
to " slaughter animals," especially to "slay in sacri-
fice," refers emphatically to a bloody sacrifice, one

- T

h See, for example (as in Faber's Origin of Sacrifire),
the elaborate reasoning on the translation of riStSH
in Gen. iv. 7. Even supposing the version, a " Bin-
offering coucheth at the door," to be correct, on the
ground of general usage of the word, of the curious
version of the LXX., and of the remarkable gram-
matical construction of the masculine participle, with
the feminine noun (as referring to the fact that the

SACRIFICE

in which the shedding of blood is the ei
idea. Thus it is opposed to rnincha/i, in Ps. xl. 6
{dvalav KaX Trpo(r<popdv), and to otah (the whole
bumt-ofl'ering) in Ex. x. 25, xviii. 12, &c. With
it the expiatory idea of sacrifice is naturally con-
nected.

Distinct from these general terms, and often
appended to them, are the words denoting special
kinds of sacrifice : —

(d.) nbir, olah (generally 6\oKavTWfjLa), the ^1
" whole burnt-oflfering." ^M

(«•) ^7^\ shelem {dvaia ffuTTipiov), used fre-
quently with nS^., and sometimes called "JS^^p,
the "peace-" or "thank-offering." * ^B

(/.) nS^n, chattath (generally vcpl IfMp- ™'
t/os), the "sin-offering."

ig-) t^?'^. asham (generally irATj/x^eAc/o), the ^m

"trespass-offering." ^^H

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

II. (A.) Origin of Sacrifice. ^m

In tracing the history of sacrifice, from its first ^H
beginning to its perfect development in the Mosaic
ritual, we are at once met by the long-disputed
question, as to the origin of sacrijice; whether it
arose from a natural instinct of man, sanctioned
and guided by God. or whether it was the subject
of some distinct primeval revelation. J^|

It is a question, the importance of which has ^H
probably been exaggerated. There can be no doubt
that sacrifice was sanctioned by God's Law, with a
special typical reference to the Atonement of Christ;
its universal prevalence, independent of, and often
opposed to, man's natural reasonings on his relation
to God, shows it to have been primeval, and deeply
rooted in the instincts of humanity. Whether it
was first enjoined by an external command, or
whether it was based on that sense of sin and lost
communion with God, which is stamped by his
hand on the heart of man — is a historical ques-
tion, perhaps insoluble, probably one which cannot
be treated at all, except in connection with some
general theory of the method of primeval revela-
tion, but certainly one which does not afllict the
authority and the meaning of the rite itself.

The great difficulty in the theory which refers
it to a distinct conunand of God, is the total silence
of Holy Scripture — a silence the more remark-
able, when contrasted with the distinct reference
made in Gen. ii. to the origin of the Sabbath.
Sacrifice when first mentioned, in the case of Cain
and Abel, is referred to as a thing of course ; it is
said to have been brought by men; there is no
hint of any command given by God. This con-
sideration, the strength of which no ingenuity*
has been able to impair, although it does not actu-
ally disprove the formal revelation of sacrifice, yet

sin-offering was actually a male), still it does not settle
the matter. The Lord even then speaks of sacrifice
as existing, and as known to exist : He does not insti-
tute it. The supposition that the "skins of beasts"
in Gen. iii. 21 were skins of animals sacrificed by God's
command, is a pure assumption. The argument on
Heb. xi. 4, that faith can rest only on a distinct Divine
command as to the special occasion of its exercise,
is contradicted by the general definition of it given in
V. 1.

SACRIFICE

at least forbids the assertion of it, as of a positive
and important doctrine.

Nor is the fact of the mysterious and super-
natural character of the doctrine of Atonement,
with which the sacrifices of the O. T. are expressly
connected, any conchisive argument on this side
of the question. All allow that tlie eucharistic
and deprecatory ideas of sacrifice are perfectly
natural to man. The hijjher view of its expiatory
character, de{)endent, as it is, entirely on its typical
nature, appears hut jiradually in Scripture. It is
veiled under other ideas in the case of the patri-
archal sacrifices. It is first distinctly mentioned
in tiie Law (I^v. xvii. 11, Ac); but even then the
theory of the sin ofTering, and of the classes of
sins to which it referred, is allowed to be obscure
and difficult; it is only in the N. T. (especially in
the Epistle to the Hebrews) that its nature is
clearly unfolded. It is ns likely that it pleased
God gradually to superacid the higher idea to an
institution, derived l)y man from the lower ideas
(which must eventually find their justification in
the higher), as that He originally commanded the
.institution when the time for the revelation of its
full meaning was not yet come. The rainbow was
just as truly the syml ol of God's new promise in
Gen. ix. 13-17, whether it had or had not existe<l,
as a natural phenonienon 1 efore the Mood. "What
God sets his s»al to. He makes a part of his revela-
tion, whatever its origin may be. It is to be
noticed (see AVarburton"s iJiv. Leg. ix. c. 2) that,
except in (Jen. xv. 9, the methotl of patriarchal
sacrifice is left free, without any direction on the
part of God, while in all the Mosaic ritual the
limitation and regulation of sacrifice, as to time,
place, and material, is a most prominent feature,
on which nnich of its distinction from hej\then
sacrifice dependetl. The inference is at least prob-
able, that when God sanctioned formally a natural
rite, then, and not till then, did He define its
metliod.

The question, therefore, of the origin of sacrifice
is best left in the silence with which Scripture
surrounds it.

(B.) Ante-Mosaic History of Sacrifice.

In examining the various sacrifices, recorded in
Scripture before the establishnient of fhe Law, we
find that the words specially denoting expiatory

sacrifice (HS^n and Dtt?S) are not applied to
them. This fact does not at all show, that they
were not actually expiatory, nor even that the
offerers had not that idea of expiation, which must
have been vaguely felt in all sacrifices; but it justi-
fies the inference, that this idea was not then the
prominent one in the doctrine of sacrifice.

The sacrifice of Cain and Abel is called minchah,
although in the case of the latter it was a bloody
sacrifice. (So in Heb. xi. 4 the word dvaia is
explained by the To7y Scopoty below.) In the case
of both it would appear to have been eucharistic,
and the distinction between the offerers to have
lain in their "faith " (Heb. xi. 4). Whether that
faith of Abel referred to the promise of the Re-
deemer, and was coimected with any idea of the
typical meaning of sacrifice, or whether it was a
simple and humhle faith in the unseen God, as the
giver and promiser of all good, we are not author-
ized by Scripture to decide.

The sacrifice of Noah after the Flood (Gen. viii.
20) is called bumt-oflTering {olnh). This sacrifice
is expressly connected with the institution of the

SACRIFICE

2771

Covenant which follows in ix. 8-17. The same
ratification of a covenant is seen in the burnt-
offering of Abraham, especially enjoined and de-
fined by God in Gen. xv. 9 ; and is probably to be
traced in the '« building of altars " by Abraham
on entering Canaan at Bethel (Gen. xii. 7, 8) and
Mamre (xiii. 18), by Isaac at Beer-sheba (xxvi. 25),
and by Jacob at Shechem (xxxiii. 20), and in
Jacob's setting up and anointing of the pillar at
Bethel (xxviii. 18. xxxv. 14). The sacrifice {zebach)
of Jacob at Mizpah also marks a covenant with
Laban, to which God is callefl to be a witness
and a party. In all these, therefore, the prom-
inent idea seems to have been what is called the
ftdtrotive, the recognition of a bond between the
sacrificer and God, and the dedication of himself,
as represented by the victim, to the service of the
Lord.

The sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. xxii. 1-13) stands
by itself, as the sole instance in which the idea of
human sacrifice was even for a moment, and as a
trial, countenanced by God. Yet in its principle
it appears to have been of the same nature as
before : the voluntary surrender of an only son on
Abraham's pnrt, and the willing dedication of him-
self on Isaac's, are in the foreground : the expiatory
idea, if recognized at all, holds certainly a second-
ary position.

In the burnt-offerings of Job for his children
(Job i. 5) and for his three friends (xlii. 8), we
for the first time find the expression of the desire
of expiation for sin accompanied by repentance and
prayer, and brought prominently forward. The
same is the case in the words of Moses to Pharaoh,
as to the necessity of sacrifice in the wilderness
(Ex. X. 25), where sacrifice (zebftcJi) is distinguished
from burnt-ofifering. Here the main idea is at least
deprecatory; the object is to appease the wrath,
and avert the vengeance of God.

(C.) The Sacrifices of the Mosaic Period.

These are inaugurated by the offering of the
Passover and the sacrifice of Ex. xxiv. The
Passover indeed is unique in its character, and
seems to embrace the peculiarities of all the various
divisions of sacrifice soon to be established. Its
ceremonial, however, most nearly resembles that of
the sin-ofiering in the emphatic use of the blood,
which (after the first celebration) was poured at
the bottom of the altar (see Lev. iv. 7), and in the
CJire taken that none of the flesh should remain
till the morning (see Ex. xii. 10, xxxiv. 25). It
was unlike it in that the flesh was to be eaten by
all (not burnt, or eaten by the priests alone), in
token of their entering into covenant with God,
and eating "at his table," as in the case of a
peace-ofFering. Its peculiar position as a historical
memorial, and its special reference to the future,
naturally mark it out as incapable of being referred
to any formal class of sacrifice ; but it is clear that
the idea of salvation from death by means of sacri-
fice is brought out in it with a distinctness before
unknown.

The sacrifice of Ex. xxiv., offered as a .solenm
inauguration of the Covenant of Sinai, has a sim-
ilarly comprehensive character. It is called a
" burnt-oftering " and "peace-offering" in v. 5;
but the solemn use of the blood (comp. Heb. ix.
18-22) distinctly marks the idea that expiatory
sacrifice was needed for enteriiig into covenant
with God, the idea of which the sin- and
offerings were afterwards the symbols.

2772 SACRIFICE

The Law of I>eviticus now unfolds distinctly the
various forms of sacrifice : —

(a.) The burnt-offering. Self-dedicatouy.
(6.) The meat-offering {unbloody) ) Euchakis-

The pence-offering (bloody) ) tic.
(c) The sin-iffering j Expiatory

The trespass-offering )

To these may be added, —

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

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

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

In consequence of the peculiarity of the Law, it
has been argued (as by Outram, Warburton, etc.)
that the whole system of sacrifice was only a con-
descension to the weakness of the people, borrowed,
more or less, from the heathen nations, especially
from Egypt, in order to guard against worse super-
stition and positive idolatry. The argument is
mainly based (see Warb. Div. Leg. iv., sect. vi. 2)
on Ez. XX. 25, and similar references in the 0. and
N. T. to the nullity of all mere ceremonial. Taken
as an explanation of the theory of sacrifice, it is
weak and superficial; it labors under two fatal
difficulties, the historical fact of the primeval exist-
ence of sacrifice, and its typical reference to the

« For instances of infringement of this rule uncen-
Bured, Bee Judg. ii. 5, vi. 26, xiii. 19; 1 Sam. xi. 15,
xvi. 6 ; 2 Sam. vi. 13 ; 1 K. iii. 2, 3. Most of tiiese

SACRIFICE

one Atonement of Christ, which was foreordaim
from the very beginning, and had been already
typified, as, for example, in the sacrifice of Isaac.
But as giving a reason for the minuteness and
elaboration of the Mosaic ceremonial, so remark-
ably contrasted with the freedom of patriarchal
sacrifice, and as furnishing an explanation of cer-
tain special rites, it may probably have some value.
It certainly contains this truth, that the craving
for visible tokens of God's presence, and visible
rites of worship, from which idolatry proceeds, was
provided for and turned into a safe channel, by the
whole ritual and typical system, of which sacrifice
was the centre. The contact with the gigantic
system of idolatry, which prevailed in Egypt, and
which had so deeply tainted the spirit of the Israel-
ites, would doubtless render such provision then
especially necessary. It was one part of the pro-
phetic office to guard against its degradation into
formalism, and to bring out its spiritual meaning ^m
with an ever-increasing clearness. ^|

(D.) Post-Mosaic Sachifices. ■!

It will not be necessary to pursue, in detail, the
history of Post-Mosaic Sacrifice, for its main prin- •
ciples were now fixed forever. The most remark-
able instances of sacrifice on a large scale are by
Solomon at the consecration of the Temple (1 K.
viii. 63), by Jehoiada after the death of Athaliah
(2 Chr. xxiii. 18), and by Hezekiah at his great
Passover and restoration of the Temple-worship
(2 Chr. XXX. 21-24:). In each case, the lavish use
of victims was chiefly in the peace-offerings, whi<^
were a sacred national feast to the people at the
Table of their Great King. ^_

The regular sacrifices in the Temple service ^M
were : — ^m

(a.) Burnt-Offerings.

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

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

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

(b.) Meat-Offerings.

1. The daily meat-offerings accompanying the
daily burnt-offerings (flour, oil, and wine) (Ex.
xxix. 40, 41).

2. The shew-bread (twelve loaves with frankin-
cense), renewed every Sabbath (I>ev. xxiv. 5-9).

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

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

(c.) Sin-Offerings.

1. Sin-offering (a kid) each new moon (Num.
xxviii. 15).

2. Sin-offerings at the Passover, Pentecost, Feast
of Trumpets, and Tabernacles (Num. xxviii. 22, 30,
xxix. 5, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38).

3. The offering of the two goats (the goat
sacrificed and the scape-goat) for the people, and
of the bullock for the priest himself, on the Great
Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.).

(d.) Incense.

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

cases are special, some authorized by special com-
mand ; but the Law probably did not attain to its full
strictness till the foundation of the Temple.

SACRIFICE

2. The incense on the Great Day of Atonement
(Lev. xvi. 12).

Besides these public sacrifices, there were offer-
ings of the people for themselves individually; at
the purificatioi» of women (Lev. xii.), the presenta-
tion of the first-born, and circumcision of all male
children, the cleansing of the leprosy (Lev. xiv.) or
any uncleanness (Lev. xv.), at the fulfillment of
Nazaritic and other vows (Num. vi. 1-21), on oc-
casions of marriage and of burial, etc., etc., besides
the frequent offering of private sin-offerings. These
must have kept up a constant succession of sacri-
fices every day; and brought the rite home to
every man's thought, and to every occasion of
human life.

(III.) In examining the doctrine of sacrifice, it
is necessary to remember, that, in its development,
the order of idea is not necessarily the same as the
order of time. By the order of sacrifice in its per-
fect form (as in Lev. viii.) it is clear that the sin-
offering occupies the most important place, the
burnt-offering comes next, and the meat-offering or
peace-offering last of all. The second could only
be offered after the first had been accepted; the
third was only a subsidiary part of the second.
Yet, in actual order of time, it has been seen, that
the patriarchal sacrifices partook much more of
the nature of the peace-offering and burnt-offering ;
and that, under the Law, by which was " the
knowledge of sin " (Rom. iii. 20), the sin-oftering
was for the first time explicitly set forth. This is
but natural, that the deepest ideas should be the
last in order of development.

It is also obvious, that those who believe in the
unity of the O. and N. T., and the typical nature
of the Mosaic Covenant, must view the type in
constant reference to the antitype, and be prepared
therefore to find in the former vague and recon-
dite meanings, which are fixed and manifested by
the latter. The sacrifices must be considered, not
merely as they stand in the Law, or even as they
might have appeared to a pious Israelite; but as
they were illustrated by the Prophets, and pei-
fectly interpreted in the N. T. (e. g. in the Epis-
tle to the Hebrews). It follows from this, that,
as belonging to a system which was to embrace all
mankind in its influence, they should be also com-
pared and contrasted with the sacrifices and wor-
ship of God in other nations, and the ideas which
in them were dimly and confusedly expressed.

It is needless to dwell on the universality of
heathen sacrifices," and difficult to reduce to any
single theory the various ideas involved therein.
It is clear, that the sacrifice was often looked upon
as a gift or tribute to the gods : an idea which (for
example) runs through all Greek literature, from
the simple conception in Homer to the caricatures
of Aristophanes or Lucian, against the perversion
of which St. Paul protested at Athens, when he
declared that God needed nothing at human hands
(Acts xvii. 25). It is also clear that sacrifices
were used as prayers, to obtain benefits, or to avert
wrath ; and that this idea was corrupted into the
superstition, denounced by heathen satirists as well
as by Hebrew prophets, that by them the gods'
favor could be purchased for the wicked, or their
"envy " be averted from the prosperous. On the
other hand, that they were regarded as thank-offer-
ings, and the feasting on their flesh as a partaking

SACRIFICE

2773

of the "table of the gods" (comp. 1 Cor. x. 20,
21), is equally certain. Nor was the higher idea
of sacrifice, as a representation of the self-devotion
of the offerer, body and soul, to the god, wholly
lost, although generally obscured by the grosser
and more obvious conceptions of the rite. But,
besides all these, there seems always to have been
latent the idea of propitiation, that is, the belief in
a communion with the gods, natural to man, broken
off in some way, and by sacrifice to be restored.
The emphatic " shedding of the blood," as the es-
sential part of the sacrifice, while the flesh was
often eaten by the priests or the sacrificer, is not
capable of any full explanation by any of the ideas
above referred to. Whether it represented the
death of the sacrificer, or (as in cases of national
offering of human victims, and of those self-de-
voted for their country) an atoning death for him;
still, in either case it contained the idea that
"without shedding of blood is no remission," and
so had a vague and distorted glimpse of the great
central truth of Revelation. Such an idea may be
(as has been argued) " unnatural," in that it could
not be explained by natural reason; but it cer-
tainly was not unnatural, if frequency of existence,
and accordance with a deep natural instinct, be
allowed to preclude that epithet.

Now the essential difference between these
heathen views of sacrifice and the Scriptural doc-
trine of the O. T. is not to be found in its denial
of any of these ideas. The very names used in it
for sacrifice (as is seen above) involve the concep-
tion of the rite as a gift, a form of worship, a
thank-oflfering, a self-devotion, and an atonement.
In fact, it brings out, clearly and distinctly, the
ideas which in heathenism were uncertain, vague,
and per\'erted.

But the essential points of distinction are two.
First, that whereas the heathen conceived of their
gods as alienated in jealousy or anger, to be sought
after, and to be appeased by the unaided action of
man. Scripture represents God himself as ap-
proaching man, as pointing out and sanctioning
the way by which the broken covenant should
be restored. This was impressed on the Israelites
at every step by the minute directions of the Law,
as to time, place, victim, and ceremonial, by its
utterly discountenancing the " will-worship," which
in heathenism found full scope, and rioted in the
invention of costly or monstrous sacrifices. And
it is especially to be noted, that this particularity
is increased as we approach nearer to the deep
propitiatory idea ; for that, whereas the patriarchal
sacrifices generally seem to have been undefined
by God, and even under the Law, the nature of
the peace-offerings, and (to some extent) the burnt-^
offerings, was determined by the sacrificer oi}ly, the
solemn sacrifice of Abraham in the inauguration
of his covenant was prescribed to him, and the
sin-offerings under the Law were most accurately
and minutely determined. (See, for example, the
whole ceremonial of Lev. xvi.) It is needless
to remark, how this essential diflTerence purifies
all the ideas above noticed from the corruptions,
which made them odious or contemptible, and sets
on its true basis the relation between God and
fallen man.

The second mark of distinction is closely con-
nected with this, inasmuch as it shows sacrifice to

a See Magce's Diss, on Sacr , vol. i. diss, v., and Sacrifice, quoted in notes
Ernst von Lasaulx's Treatise on Greek and Roman ton Lectures, 1853.

, 26, to Thomson's Bamp-

2774

SACRIFICE

be a scheme proceeding from God, and, in his
foreknowledge, connected with the one central fact
of all hun)an liistory. It is to be found in the
typical character of all Jewish sacrifices, on which,
as the l4)istle to the Hebrews argues, all their
efficacy depended. It must be remembered that,
like otlier ordinances of the I^w, they had a two-
fold effect, depending on the special position of
an Israelite, as a member of the natural Theocracy,
and on his general position, as a man in relation
with God. On the one hand, for example, the
sin-ofTering was an atonement to the national law
for moral offenses of negligence, which in " pre-
sumptuous," i. e. deliberate and willful crime, was
rejected (see Num. xv. 27-31 ; and comp. Heb. x.
26, 27). On the other hand it had, as the pro-
phetic writings show us, a distinct spiritual sig-
nificance, as a means of expressing repentance and
receiving forgiveness, which could have belonged to
it only as a type of the Great Atonement. How
far that typical meaning was recognized at differ-
ent periods and by different persons, it is useless
to speculate ; but it would be impossible to doubt,
even if we had no testimony on the subject, that,
in the face of the high spiritual teaching of the
Law and the Prophets, a pious Israelite must have
felt the nullity of material sacrifice in itself, and so
believed it to be availing only as an ordinance
of God, shadowing out some great spiritual truth,
or action of his. Nor is it unlikely that, with
more or less distinctness, he connected the evolu-
tion of this, as of other truths, with the coming
of the jiromised Messiah. But, however this
be, we know that, in God's purpose, the whole
system was typical, that all its spiritual efficacy
depended on the true sacrifice which it represented,
and could be received only on condition of Faith,
and that, therefore, it passed away when the Anti-
type was come.

The nature and meaning of the various kinds
of sacrifice is partly gathered from the form of
their institution and ceremonial, partly from the
teaching of the Prophets, and partly from the
N. T., especially the Epistle to the Hebrews. All
had relation, under different aspects, to a Covenant
between God and man.

The Sin-offering represented that Covenant
as broken by man, and as knit together again, by
God's appointment, through the "shedding of
blood." Its characteristic ceremony was the
sprinkling of the blood before the veil of the
Sanctuary, the putting some of it on the horns of
the altar of incense, and the pouring out of all the
rest at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering. The
flesh was in no case touched by the offerer; either
it was consumed by fire without the camp, or it
was eaten by the priest alone in the holy place,

and everything that touched it was holy (lyip).
This latter point marked the distinction from the
peace-offering, and showed that the sacrificer had
been rendered unworthy of communion with God.
The shedding of the blood, the symbol of life, sig-
nified that the death of the offender was deserved
for sin, but that the death of the victim was ac-
cepted for his death by the ordinance of God's

a Some render this (like Sacer) " accursed ; " but
the primitive meaning "clean," and the usage of the
word, seem decisive against this. LXX. ayCa. (vid.
Gesen. s. v.).

b In Ley. i. 4, it is said to " atone » ("ICS, »• «• to

SACRIFICE

mercy. This is seen most clearly in the cere-
monial of the Day of Atonement, when, after the
sacrifice of the one goat, the high-priest's hand was
laid on the head of the scape-goat — which was
the other part of the sin-ofFering — with confession
of the sins of the people, that it might visil)]y bear
them away, and so bring out explicitly, what in
other sin-offerings was but implied. Accordingly
we find (see quotation from the Rlishna in (Jutr.
De Sncr. i. c. xv., § 10) that, in all cases, it was
the custom for the offerer to lay his hand on the
head of the sin-ofFering, to confess generally or
specially his sins, and to say, " Let iliis be my ex-
piation." Beyond all doubt, the sin-offering dis-
tinctly witnessed, that sin existed in man, that the
"wages of that sin was death," and that God had
provided an Atonement by the vicarious sufferhig
of an appointed victim. The reference of the
Baptist to a " Lamb of God who taketh away the
sins of the world," was one understood and hailed
at once by a " true Israelite."

The ceremonial and meaning of the Burnt-
offering were very different. The idea of ex-
piation seems not to have been absent from it
(for the blood was sprinkled round about the altar
of sacrifice);^ and, before the Levitical ordinance
of the sin-ofFering to precede it, this idea may
have been even prominent. But in the system of
Leviticus it is evidently only secondary. The
main idea is the offering of the whole victim to
God, representing (as the laying of the hand on
its head shows) the devotion of the sacrificer, body
and soul, to Him. The death of the victim was
(so to speak) an incidental feature, to signify the
completeness of the devotion; and it is to be no-
ticed that, in all solemn sacrifices, no burnt-oflfering
could be made until a previous sin-offering had
brought the sacrificer again into covenant with
God. The main idea of this sacrifice must have
been representative, not vicarious, and the best
comment upon it is the exhortation in Rom. xii. 1,
" to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and
acceptable to God."

The Meat-offerings, the peace or thank-
offering, the first-fruits, etc., were simply offerings
to God of his own best gifts, as a sign of thankful
homage, and as a means of maintaining his service
and his servants. Whether they were regular or
voluntary, individual or national, hidependent or
subsidiary to other offerings, this was still the lead-
ing idea. The meat-offering, of flour, oil, and
wine, seasoned with salt, and hallowed by frankin-
cense, was usually an appendage to the devotion
implied in the burnt-offering; and the peace-offer-
ings for the people held the same place in Aaron's
first sacrifice (Lev. ix. 22), and in all others of
special solemnity. The characteristic ceremony in
the peace-offering was the eating of the flesh by
the sacrificer (after the fat had been burnt before
the Lord, and the breast and shoulder given to the
priests). It betokened the enjoyment of com-
munion with God at "the table of the Lord," in
the gifts which his mercy had bestowed, of which
a choice portion was offered to Him, to his servants,
and to his poor (see Deut. xiv. 28, 29). To this

"cover," and so to "do away;" LXX. e^ikdaaa-eat).
The same word is used below of the sin-offering ; and
the later Jews distinguish the burnt-offering as aton-
ing for thoughts and designs, the sin-offering for acts
of transgression. (See Jonath. Paraphr. on Lev. vi.
17, etc., quoted by Outram.)

SACRIFICE

view of sacrifice allusion is made by St. Paul in
Phil. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. 15, 16. It follows natu-
rally from the other two.

It is clear from this, that the idea of sacrifice
is a complex idea, involving the propitiatory, the
dedicatory, and the eucharistic elements. Any one
of these, taken by itself, would lead to error and
superstition. The propitiatory alone would tend
to the idea of atonement by sacrifice for sin, as
being effectual without any condition of repent-
ance and faith; the self-dedicatory, taken alone,
ignores the barrier of sin between man and God,
and undermines the whole idea of atonement; the
eucharistic alone leads to the notion that mere gifts
can satisfy God's service, and is easily perverted
into the heathenish attempt to " bribe " God by
vows and offerings. All three probably were more
or less implied in each sacrifice, each element pre-
dominatiii'^ in its turn: all must be kept in mind
in considering the historical influence, the spiritual
meaning, and the typical value of sacrifice.

Now the Israelites, while they seem always to
have retained the ideas of propitiation and of
eucharistic offering, even when they perverted these
by half-heathenish superstition, constantly ignored
the self- dedication which is the link between the
two, and wliich the regular burnt-offering should
have impressed upon them as their daily thought
and duty. It is therefore to this point that the
teaching of the Prophets is mainly directed; its
key-note is contained in the words of Samuel : " Be-
hold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken
than the fat of rams " (1 Sam. xv. 22). So Isaiah
declares (as in i. 10-20) that "the Lord delights
not in the blood of bullocks, or laml)S, or goats; "
that to those who «' cease to do evil and learn to
do well, .... though their sins \ye as
scarlet, they shall be white as snow." Jeremiah
reminds them (vii. 22, 23) that the IvOrd did not
"command biirnt-ofFerings or sacrifices" under
Moses, but said, " Obey my voice, and I will be
your God." Ezekiel is full of indignant protests
(see XX. 39-44) against the pollution of God's
name by offerings of those whose hearts were with
their idols. Hosea sets forth God's requirements
(vi. 6) in words which our Lord himself sanc-
tioned : " I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and
the knowledge of God more than bumf-offerings."
Amos (v. 21-27) puts it even more strongly, that
Grod "hates" their sacrifices, unless "judgment
run down like water, and righteousness like a
mighty stream."' And Micah (vi. 6-8) answers
the question which lies at the root of sacrifice,
"Wherewith shall I come before the Lord?" by
the words, " What doth the Lord require of thee,
but to do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly
with thy God V" All these passages, and many
others, are directed to one object — not to dis-
courage sacrifice, but to purify and spiritualize the
feelings of the offerers.

The same truth, here enunciated from without,
is recognized from within by the Psalmist. Thus
he says, in Ps. xl. 6-11, " Sacrifice and meat-
offering, burnt-offering and sin-offering. Thou hast
not required; " and contrasts with them the hom-
age of the heart — "mine ears hast Thou bored,"
and the active service of life — " Lo ! I come to do
Thy will, God." In Ps. 1. 13, 14, sacrifice is
contrasted with prayer and adoration (comp. Ps.
cxli. 2): "Thinkest thou that I will eat bulls' flesh,
and drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God
thanksgiving, pay thy vows to the Most Highest,

SACRIFICE

2775

and call upon me in time of trouble." In Ps. li.
16, 17, it is similarly contrasted with true repent-
ance of the heart : " The sacrifice of God is a
troubled spirit, a broken and a contrite heart."
Yet here also the next verse shows that sacrifice
was not superseded, but purified: " T/ten shalt
thou be pleased with burnt-oflerings and oblations;
then shall they oflTer young bullocks upon thine
altar." These passages are correlative to the others,
expressing the feelings, which those others in God's
name require. It is not to be argued from them,
that this idea of self-dedication is the main one of
sacrifice. The idea of propitiation lies below it,
taken for granted by the Prophets as by the whole
people, but still enveloped in mystery until the
Antitype should come to make all clear. For the
evolution of this doctrine we must look to the N.
T. ; the preparation for it by the Prophets was (so
to speak) negative, the [win ting out the nullity
of all other propitiations in themselves, and then
leaving the warnings of the conscience and the
cravings of the heiirt to fix men's hearts on the
better Atonement to come.

Without entering directly on the great subject
of the Atonement (which would be foreign to the
scope of this article), it will be sufficient to refer
to the connection, established in the N. T., between
it and the sacrifices of the ISIosaic system. To do
this, we need do little niore than analyze the Epis-
tle to the Hebrews, which contains the key of the
whole sacrificial doctrine.

In the first place, it follows the prophetic books
by stating, in the most emphatic terms, the in-
trinsic nullity of all mere material sacrifices. The
"gifts and sacrifices" of the first Tabernacle could
" never make the sacri fleers perfect in conscience "
(/coTci (TvveiSrta-iu)'- they were but "carnal ordi-
nances, imposed on them till the time of reformsv-
tion " {Siopd(t)<T€a)s) (Heb. ix. 9, 10). The very
fact of their constant repetition is said to prove
this imperfection, which depends on the funda-
mental princii)le, " that it is impossible that the
blood of bulls and goats should take away sin "
(x. 4). But it does not lead us to infer, that they
actually had no spiritual efficacy, if offered in re-
pentance and faith. On the contrary, the ol)ject
of the whole epistle is to show their typical and
probationary character, and to assert that in virtue
of it alone they had a spiritual meaning. Our
Lord is declared (see 1 Pet. i. 20) "to have been
foreordained " as a sacrifice " before the foundation
of the world;'" or (as it is more strikingly ex-
pressed in Rev. xiii. 8) "slain from the foundation
of the world." The material sacrifices represented
this Great Atonement, as already made and ac-
cepted in God's foreknowledge; and to those who
grasped the ideas of sin, pardon, and self-dedica-
tion, symbolized in them, they were means of enter-
ing into the blessings which the One True Sacrifice
alone procured. Otherwise the whole sacrificial
system could have been only a superstition and a
snare. The sins provided for by the sin-offering
were certainly in some cases moral. [See SiN-
Offering.] The whole of the INIosaic description
of sacrifices clearly implies some real spiritual bene-
fit to be derived from them, besides the temporal
privileges belonging to the national theocracy.
Just as St. Paul argues (Gal. iii. 15-29) that the
Promise and Covenant to Abraham were of pri-
mary, the Law only of secondary, importance, so
that men had under the Law more than they had
by the Law; so it must be said of the Levitical

2776

SACRIFICE

sacrifices. They could convey nothing in them-
selves; yet, as types, they might, if accepted by a
true, though necessarily imperfect, faith, be means
of conveying in some degree the blessings of the
Antityi)e.

'i'his typical character of all sacrifice being thus
set forth, the next point dwelt upon is the union
in our I>ord's person of the priest, the offerer, and
the sacrifice. [Pkikst.] The imperfection of all
sacrifices, which made them, in themselves, liable
to superstition, and even inexplicable, lies in this,
that, on the one hand, the victim seems arbitrarily
chosen to be the substitute for, or the representa-
tive of, the sacrificer;" and that, on the other, if
there be a barrier of sin between man and God,
he has no right of approach, or security that his
sacrifice will be accepted ; that there needs, there-
fore, to be a Mediator, i. e. (according to the defi-
nition of Heb. V. 1-4), a true Priest, who shall,
as being One with man, oflTer the sacrifice, and
accept it, as being One with God. It is shown
that this imperfection, which necessarily existed in
all types, without which indeed they would have
been substitutes, not preparations for the Antitype,
was altogether done away in Him; that in the
first place He, as the representative of the whole
human race, offered no arbitrarily- chosen victim,
but the willing sacrifice of his own blood ; that, in
the second. He was ordained by God, by a solemn
oath, to be a high-priest forever, " after the order
of Melchizedek," one "in all points tempted like
as we are, yet without sin," united to our human
nature, susceptible to its infirmities and trials,
yet, at the same time, the True Son of God, ex-
alted far above all created things, and ever living
to make intercession in heaven, now that his sacri-
fice is over ; and that, in the last place, the barrier
between man and God is by his mediation done
away forever, and the Most Holy Place once for
all opened to man. All the points, in the doctrine
of sacrifice, which had before been unintelligible,
were thus maile clear.

This being the case, it next follows that all the
various kinds of sacrifices were, each in its meas-
ure, representatives and types of the various aspects
of the Atonement. It is clear that the Atonement,
in this epistle, as in the N. T. generally, is viewed
in a twofold light.

On the one hand, it is set forth distinctly as a
vicarious sacrifice, which was rendered necessary by
the sin of man, and in which the Lord " bare the
sins of many." It is its essential characteristic,
that in it He stands absolutely alone, offering his
sacrifice without any reference to the faith or the
conversion of men — offering it indeed for those
who "were still sinners" and at enmity with God.
Moreover it is called a "propitiation" {IXacrnos or
IXaffT-ftpiov, Rom. iii. 25; 1 John ii. 2); a "ran-
som" {aTro\vTpQ}<Tis, Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30,
&c.); which, if words mean anything, must imply
that it makes a change in the relation between
God and man, from separation to union, from
wrath to love, and a change in man's state from
bondage to freedom. In it, then. He stands out
alone as the Mediator between God and man; and
his sacrifice is offered once for all, never to be imi-
tated or repeated.

Now this view of the Atonement is set forth in

« It may be remembered that devices, sometimes
ludicrous, sometimes horrible, were adopted to make
the Tiotim appear willing ; and that voluntary sacri-

the Epistle to the Hebrews, as typified by the
offering; especially by that particular sin-offering
with which the high-priest entered the Most Holy
Place on the Great Day of Atonement (ix. 7-12) ;
and by that which hallowed the inauguration of
the Mosaic covenant, and cleansed the vessels of its
ministration (ix. 13-23). In the same way, Christ
is called "our Passover, sacrificed for us" (1 Cor.
v. 7); and is said, in even more startling language,
to have been "made sin for us," though He "knew
no sin" (2 Cor., v. 21). This typical relation is
pursued even into details, and our Lord's suffering
without the city is compared to the burning of the
public or priestly sin-offerings without the camp
(Heb. xiii. 10-13). The altar of sacrifice (dviTi-
aa-T-f^piop) is said to have its antitype in his Pas-
sion (xiii. 10). All the expiatory and propitiatory
sacrifices of the Law are now for the first time
brought into full light. And though the prin-
ciple of vicarious sacrifice still remains, and must
remain, a mystery, yet the fact of its existence in
Him is illustrated by a thousand types. As the
sin-offering, though not the earliest, is the most
fundamental of all sacrifices, so the aspect of the
Atonement, which it symbolizes, is the one on which
all others rest.

On the other hand, the sacrifice of Christ is set
forth to us as the completion of that perfect
obedience to the will of the Father, which is the
natural duty of sinless man, in which He is the
representative of all men, and in which He calls
upon us, when reconciled to God, to " take up the
Cross and follow Him." " In the days of his flesh
He offered up prayers and supplications . . .
and was heard, in that He feared ; though He were
a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things
which he sufTered: and being made perfect" (by
that suffering; see ii. 10), "He became the author
of salvation to all them that obey Him" (v. 7, 8,
9). In this view his death is not the principal
object ; we dwell rather on his lowly incarnation,
and his life of humility, temptation, and suffering,
to which that death was but a fitting close. In
the passage above referred to the allusion is not to
the Cross of Calvary, but to the agony in Gethsem.-
ane, which bowed his human will to the will of
his Father. The main idea of this view of the
Atonement is representative, rather than vicarious.
In the first view the "second Adam" undid by
his atoning blood the work of evil which the first
Adam did ; in the second He, by his perfect obe-
dience, did that which the first Adam left undone,
and, by his grace making us like Himself, calls
upon us to follow Him in the same path. This
latter view is typified by the burnt-offering: in
respect of which the N. T. merely quotes and en-
forces the language already cited from the O. T.,
and especially (see Heb. x. 6-9) the words of Ps.
xl. 6, Ac, which contrast with material sacrifice the
" doing the will of God." It is one, which cannot
be dwelt upon at all without a previous implication
of the other ; as both were embraced in one act, so
are they inseparably connected in idea. Thus it is
put forth in Rom. xii. 1, where the " mercies of
God " {i. e. the free salvation, through the sin-
offering of (Christ's blood, dwelt upon in all the
preceding part of the epistle) are made the ground
for calling on us "to present our bodies, a living

sin- ■■

flee, such as that of the Decii, was held to be the
noblest of all.

SACRIFICE

sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God," inasmuch
as we are all (see v. 5) one with Christ, and mem-
bers of his body. In this sense it is that we are
said to be "crucified with Christ" (Gal. ii. 20;
Rom. vi. 6); to have "the sufferings of Christ
abound in us " (2 Cor. i. 5); even to " fdl up that
which is behind " (to vareprifxaTa) thereof (Col. i.
24); and to "be offered" (o-TreVSeo-^at) "upon the
sacrifice of the faith " of others (Phil. ii. 17; comp.
2 Tim. iv. 6; 1 John iii. 16). As without the
sin-offering of the Cross, this, our burnt-offering,
would be impossible, so also without the burnt-
offering the sin-offering will to us be unavailing.

With these views of our Lord's sacrifice on earth,
as typified in the I^vitical sacrifices on the outer
altar, is also to be connected the offering of his in-
tercession for us in heaven, which was represented
by the incense. In the Epistle to the Hebrews,
this part of his priestly office is dwelt upon, with
particular reference to the offering of incense in
the Most Holy Place by the high-priest on the
Great Day of Atonement (Heb. ix. 24-28; comp.
iv. 14-16, vi. 19, 20, vii. 25). It implies that the
sin-offering has been made once for all, to rend
asunder the veil (of sin) between man and God;
and that the continual burnt-offering is now ac-
cepted by Him for the sake of the Great Interced-
ing High -priest. That intercession is the strength
of our prayera, and " with the smoke of its in-
cense " they rise up to heaven (Rev. viii. 4).
[Prayer.]

The typical sense of the meat-offering, or peace-
offering, is less connected with the sacrifice of
Christ himself, than with those sacrifices of praise,
thanksgiving, charity, and devotion, which we, as
Christians, offer to God, and " with which he is
well pleased " (Heb. xiii. 15, 16) as with "an odor
of sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable to God" (Phil,
iv. 18). They betoken that, through the peace won
by the sin-offering, we have already been enabled
to dedicate ourselves to God, and they are, as it
were, the ornaments and accessories of that self-
dedication.

Such is a brief sketch of the doctrine of Sacri-
fice. It is seen to have been deeply rooted in
men's hearts: and to have been, from the begin-
ning, accepted and sanctioned by God,'and made
by Him one chaimel of his Revelation. In virtue
of that sanction it had a value, partly symbolical,
partly actual, but in all respects derived from the
one True Sacrifice, of which it was the type. It
involved the expiatory, the self-dedicatory, and
the eucharistic ideas, each gradually developed and
explained, but all capable of full explanation only
by the light reflected back from the Antitype.

On the antiquarian part of the subject valuable
information may be found in Spencer, De Legibus
Ilebrceoruni, and Outram, De Sacrificiis. The
question of the origin of sacrifice is treated clearly
on either side by Faber, On the {Divine) Origin of
Sacrifice, and by Davidson, Inquiry into the Origin
of Sacrifice ; and Warburton, Div. Leg. (b. ix.
c. 2). On the general subject, see Magee's Disser-
tation on Atonement ; the Appendix to Tholuck's
Treatise on the Hebrews ; Kurtz, Der Alttesta-
mentliche Opfercultus, Mitau, 1862 [Eng. transla-
tion by James Martin, Edhib. 1863, in Clark's
Foreign TheoL Libr. ; comp. Bihl. Sacra, ix. 27-
51] ; and the catalogue of authorities in Winer's
Realworterb., " Opfer." But it needs for its con-
sideration little but the careful study of Scripture
itse^. A. B.

175

SADDUCEES

2777

* For other works on this subject see the refer-
ences under Leviticus (Amer. ed.), vol. ii. p.
1653 6, and the list prefixed to the work of Kurtz,
just referred to. See also an article by Dr. G. R.
Noyes, The Sciipture Doctrine of Saaifce, in
the Christian Examiner (Boston) for Sept. 1855,
and the learned and elaborate discussion of the
subject in Kalisch's Leviticus, parti. (Lond. 1867 )^
pp. 1-416. * A.

SADAMI'AS {Sadanias). The name of
Shalluih, one of the ancestors of Ezra, is so writ-
ten in 2 Esdr. i. 1.

SA'DAS ChpyaU Alex. Atrroo; [Aid. SaScis :]
Archad). Azgau (1 P2sdr. v. 13; comp. Ezr. ii.
12). The form Sadas is retained from the Geneva
version. [This form, it will be observed, is the
reading of the Aldine edition. — A.]

SADDE'US (AoSSoTos; [Vat. AoSotos;] Alex.
AoASoios; [^kXA. AaZhaios'-] Loddem). "lDDO,the
chief at the place Casiphia," is called in 1 Esdr. viii.
45, " Saddens the captain, who was in the place of
the treasury." In 1 Esdr. viii. 46 the name is
written " Daddeus " in the A. V., as in the Ge-
neva Version of both passages.

* SADDLE. [Camel; Furniture; Horse;
Mule.]

SADDUC (2a55oD/cos; [Vat. 2aSSoi;Aovfco?,
Mai, Errata:] Sadoc). Zadok the high-priest,
ancestor of Ezra (1 I-lsdr. viii. 2).

SAD'DUCEES (2o55ovKa?ot : SadducoBi:
Matt. iii. 7, xvi. 1, 6, 11, 12, xxii. 23, 34; Mark
xii. 18 ; Luke xx. 27 ; Acts iv. 1, v. 17, xxiii. 6, 7,
8). A religious party or school among the Jews
at the time of Christ, who denied that the oral law
was a revelation of God to the Israelites, and who
deemed the written law alone to be obligatory on
the nation, as of Divine authority. Although fre-
quently mentioned in the New Testament in con-
junction with the Pharisees, they do not throw
such vivid light as their great antagonists on the
real significance of Christianity. Except on one
occasion, when they united with the Pharisees in
insidiously asking for a sign from heaven (Matt,
xvi. 1, 4, 6), Christ never assailed the Sadducees
with the same bitter denunciations which he ut-
ters against the Pharisees ; and they do not, like
the Pharisees, seem to have taken active measures
for causing him to be put to death. In this re-
spect, and in many others, they have not been so
influential as the Pharisees in the world's history;
but still they deserve attention, as representing
Jewish ideas before the Pharisees became tri-
umphant, and as illustrating one phase of Jewish
thought at the time when the new religion of
Christianity, destined to produce such a moment-
ous revolution in the opinions of mankhid, issued
from Judaea.

Authorities. — The sources of information re-
specting the Sadducees are much the same as for
the Pharisees. [Pharisees, vol. iii. p. 2472.]
There are, however, some exceptions negatively.
Thus, the Sadducees are. not spoken of at all in the
fourth Gospel, where the Pharisees are frequently
mentioned, John vii. 32, 45, xi. 47, 57, xviii. 3,
viii. 3, 13-19, ix. 13 ; an omission which, as Gfiiger
suggests, is not unimportant in reference to the
criticism of the Gospels ( Urschrift und Ueberset-
zungen der Bibel, p. 107). Moreover, while St.
Paul had been a Pharisee and was the son of a
Pharisee; while Josephus was a Pharisee, and the
Mishna was a Pharisaical digest of Pharisaicsd

2778

SADDUCEES

opinions and practices, not a single undoubted
writing of an acknowledged Sadducee has come
down to us, so that for an acquaintance with their
opinions we are mainly dependent on their antago-
nists. This point should be always borne in mind
in judging their opinions, and forming an estimate
of their character, and its full bearing will be duly
appreciated by those who reflect that even at the
present day, with all the checks against misrepre-
sentation arising from publicity and the invention
of printing, probably no religious or political party
in England would be content to accept the state-
ments of an opponent as giving a correct view of
its opinions.

Origin of the name. — Like etymologies of
words, the origin of the name of a sect is, in some
cases, almost wholly immaterial, while in other
cases it is of extreme importance towards under-
standing opinions which it is proposed to investi-
gate. The origin of the name Sadducees is of the
latter description; and a reasonable certainty on
this point would go far towards ensuring correct
ideas respecting the position of the Sadducees in the
Jewish state. The subject, however, is involved in
great difficulties. The Hebrew word by which they
are called in the Mishna is Tsedukim, the plural of
Tsddok, which undoubtedly means "just," or
" righteous," but which is never used in the Bible
except as a proper name, and in the Anglican Ver-
sion is always translated "Zadok" (2 K. xv. 33;
2 Sam. viii. 17; 1 Chr. vi. 8, 12, &c.; Neh. iii. 4,
29, xi. 11). The most obvious translation of the
word, therefore, is to call them Zadoks or Zadok-
ites; and a question would then arise as to why
they were so called. The ordinary Jewish state-
ment is that they are named from a certain Zadok,
a disciple of the Antigonus of Socho, who is men-
tioned in the Mishna {Avotk i.) as having received
the oral law from Simon the Just, the last of the
men of the Great Synagogue. It is recorded of
this Antigonus that he used to say: " Be not like
servants who serve their master for the sake of re-
ceiving a reward, but be like servants who serve
their master without a view of receiving a reward; "
and the current statement has been that Zadok,
who gave his name to the Zadokites or Sadducees,
misinterpreted this saying so far, as not only to
maintain the great truth that virtue should be the
rule of conduct without reference to the rewards of
the individual agent, but likewise to proclaim the
doctrine that there was no future state of rewards

and punishments. (See Buxtorf, s. v. p*)11? j

a Aruch., or ''ArUc ("^THl^n), means "arranged,"
or " set in order." The author of this work was an-
other Rabbi Nathan Ben Jechier, president of the Jew-
ish Academy at Rome, who died in 1106. a. d. (See
Bartolocci, Bibl. Rabb. iv. 261.) The reterence to
Rabbi Nathan, author of the treatise on the AvOth, is

made in the Aruch under the word 7'^Din'^n. The
treatise itself was published in a Latin translation by
F. Tayler, at London, 1657. The original passage re-
epecting Zadok's disciples is printed by Geiger in He-
brew, and translated by him, Urschri/t, etc., p. 105.

* Dr. Ginsburg, in his valuable article Sadducees,
in the 3d edition of Kitto's Cyclop, of Bibl. Lit. iii. 731,
note, corrects *Ir. Twistleton's statements respecting
" the earliest mention " of Rabbi Nathan, and the
time when he lived. He says : " This Rabbi Nathan
or Nathan ha-Babli, as he is called in the Talmud,
because he was a native of Meshan in Babylon {Baba
Bathra, 73 d), was one of the most distinguished Mish-

SADDUCEES

Lightfoot's Ilorce Hebraicce on Matth. iii. 8; ani
the Note of Maimonides in Surenhusius's Mishin,
iv. 411.) If, however, the statement is traced up
to its original source, it is found that there is no
mention of it either in the Mishna, or in any other
part of the Talmud (Geiger's Urschrift, etc., p.
105), and that the first mention of something of
the kind is in a small work by a certain Kabbi
Nathan, which he wrote on the Treatise of the
Mishna called the Avoih, or " Fathers." But the
age in which this Rabbi Nathan lived is uncertain
(Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Kabbinica, vol. iii.
p. 770), and the earliest mention of him is in a
well-known Eabbinical dictionary called the Aruch.*^
which wsis completed about the year 1105, A. D.
The following are the words of the above-mentioned
Rabbi Nathan of the Avotk. Adverting to the
passage in the Mishna, already quoted, respecting
Antigonus's saying, he observes: "Antigonus of
Socho had two disciples who taught the saying to
their disciples, and these disciples again taught it
to their disciples. At last these began to scruti-
nize it narrowly, and said, ' What did our Fathers
mean in teaching this saying? Is it possible that
a laborer is to perform his work all the day, and
not receive his wages in the evening ? Truly, if
our Fathers had known that there is another world
and a resurrection of the dead, they would not have
spoken thus.' They then began to separate them-
selves from the Law; and so there arose two sects,
the Zadokites and Baithusians, the former from
Zadok, and the latter from Baithos." Now it is
to be observed on this passage that it does not jus-
tify the once current belief that Zadok himself mis-
interpreted Antigonus's saying; and it suggests no
reason why the followers of the supposed new doc-
trines should have taken their name from Zadok
rather than Antigonus. Bearing this in mind, in
connection with several other points of the same
nature, such as, for example, the total silence re-
specting any such story in the works of Josephus
or in the Talmud ; the absence of any other special
information respecting even the existence of the
supposed Zadok ; the improbable and childishly il-
logical reasons assigned for the departure of Zadok's
disciples from the Law; the circumstances that
Rabbi Nathan held the tenets of the Pharisees,
that the statements of a Pharisee respecting the
Sadducees must always be received with a certain
reserve, that Rabbi Nathan of the Avoth, for aught
that has ever been proved to the contrary, may
have lived as long as 1000 years after the first ap-

naic doctors. In consequence of his high birth, as
his father was Prince of the Captivity in Babylon,
and his marvellous knowledge of the law, both divine
and human, . . he was created vicar of the patri-
arch Simon II. b. Gamaliel II., A. D. 140-163, or presi-
dent of the tribunal (^"^1 rT^^ 3S). He is fre-
quently quoted in the Talmud as a profound scholar
of the law (Horajoth, 13 b ; Baba Kama, 23 a ; Baba
Mezia, 117 b), and has materially contributed to the
compilation of the Mishna, as he himself compiled a
Mishna, which is quoted by the name of Mishnath de
Rabbi Nathan, and which Rabbi Jehudah the holy
used for the redaction of the present Mishna.''^ But
after all, Dr. Ginsburg is disposed to regard the pas-
sage about the Sadducees in the AvOth of Rabbi Na-
than as by a later hand, " like many other pieces in
the same work," and thinks that its author most
probably flourished towards the end of the 7th cen-
tury (p. 733). He himself adopts the view of Geiger
respecting the origin of the Sadducees. A.

SADDUCEES

pearance of the Sadducees as a party in Jewish his-
tory, and that lie quotes no authority of any kind
for his account of their origin, it seems reasonable
to reject this Rabbi Nathan's narration as unwor-
thy of credit. Another ancient suggestion concern
ing the origin of the name " Sadducees " is in Epi
phanius (Adversus Utereses, xiv. ), who states that
the Sadducees called themselves by that name from
" righteousness," the interpretation of the Hebrew
word Zedek; "and that there was likewise an-
ciently a Zadok among the priests, but that they
did not continue in the doctrines of their chief."
But this statement is unsatisfiictory in two re-
spects: 1st. It does not explain why, if the sug-
gested etymology was correct, the name of the Sad-
ducees was not Tsaddlkim or Zaddikites, which
would have been the regular Hebrew adjective for
the "Just," or "Kighteous "; and 2dly. While it
evidently implies that they once held the doctrines
of an ancient priest, Zadok, who is even called their
chief or master {inia-TaTris), it does not directly
assert that there was any connection between his
name and theirs; nor yet does it say that the co
incidence between the two names was accidental
Moreover, it does not give information as to when
Zadok lived, nor what were those doctrines of his
which the Sadducees once held, but subsequently
departed from. The unsatisfactoriness of Kpipha-
nius's statement is increased by its being coupled
with an assertion that the Sadducees were a branch
broken off from Dositheus ; or in other words Schis-
matics from Dositheus {aTr6(nra(rfxa ovres anh Ao
fftdeov) ; for Dositheus was a heretic who lived about
the time of Christ (Origen, contra Ctlsum, lib. i. c.
17; Clemens, Recoynit. ii. 8; Photius, Bibliolh. c.
X.XX.), and thus, if Epiphauius was correct, the
opinions characteristic of the Sadducees were pro-
ductions of the Christian era; a supposition con-
trary to tlie express declaration of the Pharisee
Josephus, and to a notorious fact of history, the
connection of Hyrcanus with the Sadducees more
than 100 years before Christ. (See Josephus, Ant.
xiii. 0, § 6, and xviii. 1, § 2, where observe the
phrase Ik tov iravv apxaiou . . .) Hence Epipha-
nius's expknation of the origin of the word Saddu-
cees must be rejected with that of Rabbi Nathan
of the Avoth. In these circimistances, if recourse
is had to conjecture, the first point to be consid-
ered is whether the word is likely to have arisen
from the meaning of "righteousness," or from the
name of an individual. This nuist be decided in
favor of the latter alternative, inasmuch as the word
Zadok never occurs in the Bible, except as a proper
name; and then we are led to inquire as to who
the Zadok of the Sadducees is likely to have been.
Now, according to the existing records of Jewish
history, there was one Zadok of transcendent im-
portance, and only one; namely, the priest who
acted such a prominent part at the time of David,
and who declared in favor of Solomon, when Abia-
thar took the part of Adonijah as successor to the
throne (1 K. i. 32-45). This Zadok was tenth in
descent, according to the genealogies, from the
high- priest Aaron; and whatever may be the cor-
rect explanation of the statement in the 1st Book
of Kings, ii. 35, that Solomon put him in the room
of Abiatbar, although on previous occasions he

SADDUCEES

2779

a According to the Mishna, Sanhed. iv. 2, no one
was " clean," in the Levitical sense, to act as a judge
in capital trials, except priests, Levites, and Israelites
whose daughters might marry priests. This again

had, when named with him, been always mentioned
first (2 Sam. xv. 35, xix. 11; cf. viii. 17), his line
of priests appears to have had decided preeminence
in subsequent history. Thus, when in 2 Chr.
xxxi. 10, Hezekiah is represented as putting a ques-
tion to the priests and Levites generally, the an-
swer is attributed to Azariah, " the chief priest of
the house of Zadok:" and in Ezekiel's prophetic
vision of the future Temple, " the sons of Zadok "
and " the priests the Levites of the seed of Zadok "
are spoken of with peculiar honor, as those who
kept the charge of the sanctuary of Jehovah, when
the children of Israel went astray (Ezek. xl. 46,
xUii. 19, xliv. 15, xlviii. 11). Now, as the transi-
tion from the expression "sons of Zadok" and
" priests of the seed of Zadok " to Zadokites is easy
and obvious, and as in the Acts of the Apostles v.
17, it is said, " Theii the Jdyh-priest rose, and aU
they that iccre with him, tohich is the sect of' the
Scuklucees, and were filled with indignation," it has
been conjectured by Geiger that the Sadducees
or Zadokites were originally identical with the sons
of Zadok, and constituted what may be termed a
kind of sacerdotal aristocracy ( Urschrift, etc., p.
104). To these were afterwards attached all who
for any reason reckoned themselves as belonging to
the aristocriicy ; such, for example, as the families
of the high-priest ; who had obtained consideration
under the dynasty of Horod. These were for the
most part judges," and individuals of the official
and governing class. Now, although this view of
the Sadducees is only inferential, and mainly con-
jectural, it certainly explains the name better than
any other, and elucidates at once in the Acts of the
Apostles the otherwise obscure statement that the
high-priest, and those who were with him, were the
sect of the Sadducees. Accepting, therefore, this
view till a more probable conjecture is suggested,
some of the principal peculiarities or supposed pe-
culiarities of the Sadducees will now be noticed in
detail, although in such notice some points must
be touched upon, which have been already partly
discussed in speaking of the Pharisees.

I. The leading tenet of the Sadducees was the
negation of the leafiing tenet of their opponents.
As the Pharisees asserted, so the Sadducees denied,
that the Israelites were in possession of an Oral
Law transmitted to them by Moses. The manner
in which the Pharisees may have gained acceptance
for their own view is noticed elsewhere in this work
[vol. iii. p. 2474] ; but, for an equitable estimate
of the Sadducees, it is proper to bear in mind
emphatically how destitute of historical evidence
the doctrine was which they denied. That doctrine
is at the present day rejected, probably by almost
all, if not by all. Christians; and it is indeed so
foreign to their ideas, that the greater number of
Christians have never even heard of it, though it
is older than Christianity, and has been the sup-
port and consolation of the Jews under a series of
the most cruel and wicked persecutions to which
any nation has ever been exposed during an equal
number of centuries. It is likewise now main-
tained, all over the world, by those who are called
the orthodox Jews. It is therefore desirable, to
know the kind of arguments by which at the
present day, in an historical and critical age, the

tallies with the explanation offered in the text, of the
Sadducees, as a sacerdotal aristocracy, being " with
the high-priest."

2". 80

SADDUCEES

doctrine is defended. For this an opportunity has
been given during the last three years by a learned
French Jew, Grand-Rabbi of the circumscription
of Colniar (Klein, Le Jvdaisme, ou la Verite sur
te Talmud, Mulhouse, 1859), who still asserts as a
fact, the existence of a Mosaic Oral Law. To do
full justice to his views, the original work should
be perused. But it is doing no injustice to his
learning and ability, to point out that not one
of his arguments has a positive historical value.
Thus he relies mainly on the inconceivability (as
will be again noticed in this article) that a Divine
revelation should not have explicitly proclaimed the
doctrine of a future state of rewards and punish-
ments, or that it should have promulgated laws,
left in such an incomplete form, and requiring so
much explanation, and so many additions, as the
laws in the Pentateuch. Now, arguments of this
kind may be sound or unsound; based on reason,
or illogical ; and for many they may have a philo-
sophical or theological value; but they have no
pretense to be regarded as historical, inasmuch as
the assumed premises, which involve a knowledge
of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and the
manner in which He would be likely to deal with
man, are far beyond the limits of historical verifi-
cation. The nearest approach to an historical
argument is the following (p. 10): "In the first
place, nothing proves better the fact of the exist-
ence of the tradition than the belief itself in the
tradition. An entire nation does not suddenly
forget its religious code, its principles, its laws, the
daily ceremonies of its worship, to such a point,
that it could easily be persuaded that a new doc-
trine presented by some impostors is the true and
only explanation of its law, and has always de-
termined and ruled its application. Holy Writ
often represents the Israelites as a stiff-necked
people, impatient of the religious yoke, and would
it not be attributing to them rather an excess of
docility, a too great condescension, a blind obe-
dience, to suppose that they suddenly consented to
troublesome and rigorous innovations which some
persons might have wished to impose on them
some fine morning ? Such a supposition destroys
itself, and we are obliged to acknowledge that the
tradition is not a new invention, but that its birth
goes back to the origin of the religion ; and that
transmitted from father to son as the word of God,
it lived in the heart of the people, identified itself
with the blood, and was always considered as an
inviolable authority." But if this passage is care-
fully examined, it will be seen that it does not
supply a single fact worthy of being regarded as a
proof of a Mosaic Oral Law. Independent testi-
mony of persons contemporary with Moses that he
had transmitted such a law to the Israelites would
be historical evidence ; the testimony of persons in
the next generation as to the existence of such an
Oral Law which their fathers told them came from
Moses, would have been secondary historical evi-
dence ; but the belief of the Israelites on the point
1,200 years after Moses, cannot, in the absence of
any intermediate testimony, be deemed evidence of
an historical fact. Moreover, it is a mistake to

a See p. 32 of Essay on the Revenues of the Church
of England, by the Rev. Morgan Cove, Prebendary of
Hereford, and Rector of Eaton Bishop. 578 pp. Lon-
don, Rivington, 1816. Third edition. " Thus do we
return again to the original difficulty [the origin of
tithes], to the solution of which the strength of human

assume, that they who deny a Mosaic Oral Law,
imagine that this Oral Law was at some one time,
as one great system, introduced suddenly amongst
the Israelites. The real mode of conceiving what
occurred is far different. After the return from
the Captivity, there existed probably amongst the
Jews a large body of customs and decisions not
contained in the Pentateuch ; and these had prac-
tical authority over the people long before they
were attributed to Moses. The only phenomenon
of importance requiring explanation is not the ex-
istence of the customs sanctioned by the Oral Law,
but the belief accepted by a certain portion of the
Jews that Moses had divinely revealed those cus-
toms as laws to the Israelites. To explain this
historically from written records is impossible, from
the silence on the subject of the very scanty his-
torical Jewish writings purporting to be written
between thcTeturn from the Captivity in 538 before
Christ and that uncertain period when the canon
was closed, which at the earliest could not have
been long before the death of Antiochus Epiphanes,
B. c. 164. For all this space of time, a period of
about 374 years, a period as long as from the acces-
sion of Henry VII. to the present year (1862) we
have no Hebrew account, nor in fact any con-
temporary account, of the history of the Jews in
Palestine, except what may be contained in the
short works entitled Ezra and Nehemiah. And
the last named of these works does not carry
the history much later than one hundred years
after the return from the Captivity : so that there
is a long and extremely important period of more
than two centuries and a half before the heroic
rising of the Maccabees, during which there is a
total absence of contemporary Jewish history. In
this dearth of historical materials, it is idle to
attempt a positive narration of the circumstances
under which the Oral Law became assigned to
Moses as its author. It is amply sufficient if a
satisfactory suggestion is made as to how it might
have been attributed to Moses, and in this there is
not much difficulty for any one who bears in mind
how notoriously in ancient times laws of a much
later date were attributed to Minos, Lycurgus,-
Solon, and Numa. The unreasonableness of sup-
posing that the belief in the oral traditions being
from Moses must have coincided in point of time
with the acceptance of the oral tradition, may be
illustrated by what occurred in England during
the present century. During a period when the
fitness of maintaining the clergy by tithes was
contested, the theory was put forth that the origin
of tithes was to be assigned to "an unrecorded
revelation made to Adam." « Now, let us suppose
that England was a country as small as Judaea;
that the English were as few in number as the
Jews of Judaea must have been in the time of
Nehemiah, that a temple in London was the centre
of the English religion, and that the population
of London hardly ever reached 50,000. [Jeru-
salem, ii. 1320.] Let us further suppose that
printing was not invented, that manuscripts were
dear, and that few of the population could read.
Under such circumstances it is not impossible that

reason is unequal. Nor does there remain any other
method of solving it, but by assigning the origin of
the custom, and the peculiar observance of it, to some
unrecorded revelation made to Adam, and by him and
his descendants delivered down to posterity."

SADDUCEES

the assertion of an unrecorded revelation made to
Adam, might have been gradually accepted by a
large religious party in England as a divine author-
ity for tithes. If this belief had continued in the
same party during a period of more than 2,000
years, if that party had become dominant in the
English Church, if for the first 250 years every
contemporary record of English history became lost
to mankind, and if all previous English writings
merely condemned the belief by their silence, so
that the precise date of the origin of the belief
could not be ascertained, we should have a parallel
to the way in which a belief in a Mosaic Oral Law
may possibly have arisen. Yet it would have been
very illogical for an English reasoner in the year
4000 A. D. to have argued from the burden and
annoyance of paying tithes to the correctness of
the theory that the institution of tithes was owing
to this unrecorded revelation to Adam. It is not
meant by this illustration to suggest that reasons
as specious could be advanced for such a divine
origin of tithes as even for a Mosaic Oral Iaw.
The main object of the illustration is to show that
the existence of a practice, and the belief as to the
origin of a practice, are two wholly distinct points ;
and that there is no necessary connection in time
between the introduction of a practice, and the in-
troduction of the prevalent belief in its origin.

Under this head we may add that it must not be
assumed that the Sadducees, because they rejected
a Mosaic Oral l^w, rejected likewise all traditions
and all decisions in explanation of passages in the
Pentateuch. Although they protested against the
assertion that such points had been divinely settled
by Moses, they probably, in numerous instances,
followed practically the same traditions as the
Pharisees. This will explain why in the Mishna
specific points of difference between the Pharisees
and Sadducees are mentioned, which are so unim-
portant; such, e. g. as whether touchirjg the Holy
Scriptures made the hands technically ''unclean,"
in the Levitical sense, and whether the stream
which flows when water is poured from a clean
vessel into an unclean one is itself technically
"clean" or "unclean" {Yadaiin, iv. 6, 7). If
the Pharisees and Sadducees had differed on all
matters not directly contained in theT Pentiiteuch,
it would scarcely have been necessary to partic-
ularize points of difierence such as these, which
to Christians imbued with the genuine spirit of
Christ's teaching (Matt. xv. 11; Luke xi. 37-40),
must appear so trifling, as almost to resemble the
products of a diseased imagination."

II. The second distinguishing doctrine of the
Sadducees, the denial of man's resurrection after
death, followed in their conceptions as a logical
conclusion from their denial that Moses had re-
vealed to the Israelites the Oral Law. For on a
point so momentous as a second life beyond the
grave, no religious party among the Jews would
have deemed themselves bound to accept any doc-
trine as an article of faith, unless it had been
proclaimed by Moses, their great legislator ; and it

SADDUCEES

2781

a Many other points of difference, ritual and jurid-
ical, are mentioned in the Gemaras. See Graetz
(iii, 514-518). But it seems unsafe to admit the
Gemaras as an authority for statements respecting
the Pharisees and Sadducees. See, as to the date of
those works, the article Pharisees.

b See De Senectute, xxiii. This treatise was com-
posed within two years before Cicero's death, and

is certain that in tiie written Law of the Penta-
teuch there is a total absence of any assertion by
Moses of the resurrection of the dead. The ab-
sence of this doctrine, so far as it involves a future
state of rewards and punishments, is emphatically
manifest from the numerous occasions for its in-
troduction in the Pentateuch, among the promises
and threats, the blessings and curses, with which a
portion of that great work abounds. In the Law
Moses is represented as promising to those who are
obedient to the commands of Jehovah the most
alluring temporal rewards, such as success in busi-
ness, the acquisition of wealth, fruitful seasons,
victory over their enemies, long life, and fi-eedom
from sickness (Deut. vii. 12-15, xxviii. 1-12; Ex.
XX. 12, xxiii. 25, 26); and he likewise menaces the
disobedient with the most dreadful evils which can
afflict humanity, with poverty, fell diseases, dis-
astrous and disgraceful defeats, subjugation, dis-
persion, oppression, and overpowering anguish of
heart (Deut. xxviii. 15-68): but in not a single
instance does he call to his aid the consolations
and terrors of rewards and punishments hereafter.
Moreover, even in a more restricted indefinite sense,
such as might be involved in the transmigration
of souls, or in the immortality of the soul as
believed in by Plato, and apparently by Cicero,''
there is a similar absence of any assertion by Moses
of a resurrection of the dead. This fact is pre-
sented to Christians in a striking manner by the
well-known words of the Pentateuch which are
quoted by Christ in argument with the Sadducees
on this subject (Ex. iii. 6, 16; Mark xii. 26, 27;
Matt. xxii. 31, 32; Luke xx. 37). It cannot be
doubted that in such a case Christ would quote to
his powerful adversaries the most cogent text in
the I^w ; and yet the text actually quoted does not
do more than suggest an inference on this great
doctrine. Indeed it must be deemed proliable that
the Sadducees, as they did not acknowledge the
divine authority of Christ, denied even the logical
validity of the inference, and argued that the ex-
pression that Jehovah was the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, did not
necessarily mean more than that Jehovah had been
the God of those patriarchs while they lived on
earth, without conveying a suggestion, one way or
another, as to whether they were or were not still
living elsewhere. It is true that in other parts of
the Old Testament there are individual passages
which express a belief in a resurrection, such as in
Is. xxvi. 19; Dan. xii. 2; Job xix. 26, and in some
of the Psalms ; and it may at first sight be a sub-
ject of surprise that the Sadducees were not con-
vinced by the authority of those passages. But
although the Sadducees regarded the books which
contained these passages as sacred, it is more than
doubtful whether any of the Jews regarded them
as sacred in precisely the same sense as the written
I^w. There is a danger here of confounding the
ideas which are now common amongst Christians,
who regard the whole ceremonial law as abrogated,
with the ideas of Jews after the time of Ezra,

although a dialogue, may perhaps be accepted as ex-
pressing his philosophical opinions respecting the im-
mortality of the soul. He had held, however, very
different language in his oration pro Cluentio, cap.
Ixi., in a passage which is a striking proof of the
popular belief at Rome in his time. See also Sallust,
Catilin. U. ; Juvenal, ii. 149 ; and Pliny the Elder,
vii. 66.

2782

SADDUCEES

while the Temple was still standing, or even with
the ideas of orthodox modern Jews. To the Jews
Moses was and is a colossal Form, preeminent in
authority above all subsequent prophets. Not only
did his series of signs and wonders in Egypt and
at the Red Sea transcend in magnitude and brill-
iancy those of any other holy men in the Old
Testament, not only was he the centre in Mount
Sinai of the whole legislation of the Israelites, but
even the mode by which divine communications
were made to him from Jehovah was peculiar to
him alone. While others were addressed in visions
or in dreams, the Supreme Being communicated
with him alone mouth to mouth and face to face
(Num. xii. 6, 7, 8; Ex. xxxiii. 11; Deut. v. 4,
xxxiv. 10-12). Hence scarcely any Jew would
have deemed himself bound to believe in man's
resurrection, unless the doctrine had been pro-
claimed by Moses; and as the Sadducees disbe-
lieved the transmission of any oral law by Moses,
the striking absence of that doctrine from the
written Law freed them from the necessity of ac-
cepting the doctrine as divine. It is not meant by
this to deny that Jewish believers in the resurrec-
tion had their faith strengthened and confirmed by
allusions to a resurrection in scattered passages of
the other sacred writings; but then these passages
were read and interpreted by means of the central
light which streamed from the Oral Law. The
Sadducees, however, not making use of that light,
would have deemed all such passages inconclusive,
as being, indeed, the utterances of holy men, yet
opposed to other texts which had equal claims to
be pronounced sacred, but which could scarcely be
supposed to have been written by men who believed
in a resurrection (Is. xxxviii. 18, 19; Ps. vi. 5,
XXX. 9, Ixxxviii. 10, 11, 12; Eccl. ix. 4-10). The
real truth seems to be that, as in Christianity the
doctrine of the resurrection of man rests on belief
in the resurrection of Jesus, with subsidiary argu-
ments drawn from texts in the Old Testament, and
from man's instincts, aspirations, and moral nature;
so, admitting fully the same subsidiary arguments,
the doctrine of the resurrection among Pharisees,
and the successive generations of orthodox Jews,
and the orthodox Jews now living, has rested, and
rests, on a belief in the supposed Oral Law of
Moses. On this point the statement of the learned
Grand-Rabbi to whom allusion has been already
made deserves particular attention. " What causes
most surprise in perusing the Pentateuch is the
silence which it seems to keep respecting the most
fundamental and the most consoling truths. The
doctrines of the immortality of the soul, and of
retribution beyond the tomb, are able powerfully to
fortify man against the violence of the passions and
the seductive attractions of vice, and to strengthen
his steps in the rugged path of virtue: of them-
selves they smooth all the difficulties which are
raised, all the objections which are made, against
the government of a Divine Providence, and account
for the good fortune of the wicked and the bad
fortune of the just. But man searches in vain for
these truths, which "he desires so ardently; he in
vain devours with avidity each page of Holy Writ;
he does not find either them, or the simple doc-
trine of the resurrection of the dead, explicitly
announced. Nevertheless truths so consoling and
of such an elevated order cannot have been passed
over in silence, and certainly God has not relied
on the mere sagacity of the human mind in order
to annoimce them only implicitly. He has trans-

SADDUCEE&

mined them verbally, with the means of finding
them in the text. A supplementary tradition was
necessary, indispensable : this traditimi exists.
Moses received the Law frmn Sinai, transmitted
it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders trans-
mitted it to the prophets, and the prophets to the
men of the cjreat synagogue " (Klein, Le Judaisme
ou la Veiite sur le Talmud, p. 15).

In connection with the disbelief of a resurrection
by the Sadducees, it is proper to notice the state-
ment (Acts xxiii. 8) that they likewise denied there
was "angel or spirit." A perplexity arises as to
the precise sense in which this denial is to be un-
derstood. Angels are so distinctly mentioned in
the Pentateuch and other books of the Old Testa-
ment, that it is hard to understand how those who
acknowledged the Old Testament to have divine
authority could deny the existence of angels (see
Gen. xvi. 7, xix. 1, xxii. 11, xxviii. 12; Ex. xxiii.
20; Num. xxii. 23; Judg. xiii. 18; 2 Sam. xxiv.
16, and other passages). The difficulty is increased
by the fact that no such denial of angels is recorded
of the Sadducees either by Joseph us, or in the
Mishna, or, it is said, in any part of the Talmudical
writings. The two principal explanations which
have been suggested are, either that the Sadducees
regarded the angels of the Old Testament as tran-
sitory unsubstantial representations of Jehovah, or
that they disbelieved, not the angels of the Old
Testament, but merely the angelical system which
had become developed in the popular belief of the
Jews after their return from the Babylonian Cap-
tivity (Herzfeld, Geschichte des Vulkes Jisrael, iii.
364). Either of these explanations may possibly
be coiTect ; and the first, although there are immer-
ous texts to which it did not apply, would have
received some countenance from jjassages wherein
the same divine appearance which at one time is
called the "angel of Jehovah" is afterwards called
simply "Jehovah" (see the instances pointed out

by Gesenius, s. v. T]S7?5, Gen. xvi. 7, 13, xxii.
11, 12, xxxi. 11, 16; Ex. iii. 2, 4; Judg. vi. 14,
22, xiii. 18, 22). Perhaps, however, another sug-
gestion is admissible. It appears from Acts xxiii.-
9, that some of the scribes on the side of the
Pharisees suggested the possibility of a spirit or
an angel having spoken to St. Paul, on the very
occasion when it is asserted that the Sadducees
denied the existence of angel or spirit. Now the
Sadducees may have disbelieved in the occurrence
of any such phenomena in their own time, although
they accepted all the statements respecting angels
in the Old Testament; and thus the key to the
assertion in the 8th verse that the Sadducees denied
" angel or spirit " would be found exclusively in
the 9th verse. This view of the Sadducees may be
illustrated by the present state of opinion among
Christians, the great majority of whom do not in
any way deny the existence of angels as recorded
in the Bible, and yet they certainly disbelieve that
angels speak, at the present day, even to the most
virtuous and pious of mankind.

III. The opinions of the Sadducees respecting
the freedom of the will, and the way in which
those opinions are treated by Josephus {A7it. xiii.
5, § 9 ), have been noticed elsewhere [Pharisees,
iii. 2478], and an explanation has been there sug-
gested of the prominence given to a difference in
this respect between the Sadducees and the Phari-
sees. It may be here added that possibly the great
stress laid by the Sadducees on the freedom of the

SADDUCEES

will may have had some connection with their
forming such a large portion of that class from
which criminal judges were selected. Jewish phi-
losophers in their study, although they knew that
punishments as an instrument of good were un-
avoidable, might hidulge in reflections that man
seemed to be the creature of circumstances, and
might regard with compassion the punishments
inflicted on individuals whom a wiser moral train-
ing and a more happily balanced nature might have
made useful members of society. Those Jews who
were almost exclusively religious teachers would
naturally insist on the inability of man to do any-
thing good if God's Holy Spirit were taken away
from him (Ps. h. 11, 12), and would enlarge on
the perils which surrounded man from the tempta-
tions of Satan atid evil angels or spirits (1 Ohr.
xxi. 1; Tob. iii. 17). But it is hkely that the
tendencies of the judicial class would be more prac-
tical and direct, and more strictly in accordance
with the ideas of the Levitical prophet I'iekiel
(xxxiii. 11-19) in a well-known jwssage in which he
gives the responsibility of bad actions, and seems
to attribute the power of performing good actions,
exclusively to the individual agent. Hence the
sentiment of the lines —

" Our acts our Angels are, or good or ill,
Our fatal shadows that walk by us still,"

would express that portion of truth on which the
Sadducees, in inflicting punishments, would dwell
with most emphasis: and as, in some sense, they
disbelieved in angels, these lines have a peculiar
claim to be regarded as a correct exponent of Sad-
ducean thought." And yet perhaps, if writings
were extant in which the Sadducees explained their
own idais, we might find that they reconciled these
principles, as we may be certaui that I-lzekiel did,
with other passages apparently of a different import
in the Old Testament, and that the line of demar-
cation between them and the Pharisees was not,
in theory, so very sharply marked as the account
of Joseph us would lead us to suppose.

IV. Some of the early Christian writers, such
as [Hippol. Philosophum. ix. 29, and the spu-
rious addition to Tertull. De Prcescr. Ilceret. c.
1 (or 45),] Epiphanius {Hceres. xiv.), Origen
and Jerome (in their respective Commentaries on
Matt. xxii. 31, 32, 33) attribute to the Sadducees
the rejection of all the Sacred Scriptures except the
Pentateuch. Such r^ection, if true, would un-
doubtedly constitute a most important additional
difference between the Sadducees and Pharisees.
The statement of these Christian writers is, how-
ever, now generally admitted to have been founded
on a misconception of the truth, and probably to
have arisen from a confusion of the Sadducees
with the Samaritans. See Lightfoot's Hoi'ce He-
Wnicce on Matt. iii. 7; Herzfeld's Geschiehte des
Volkes JisraeL, ii. 363. Josephus is wholly silent
as to an antagonism on this point between the
Sadducees and Pharisees ; and it is absolutely in-
conceivable that on the three several occasions when
he introduces an account of the opinions of the
two sects, he should have been silent respect-
ing such an antagonism if it had really ex-
isted {Ant. xiii. 5, § 9, xviii. 1, § 3; B. J. ii. 8,

a The preceding lines would be equally applicable,
if, as is not improbable, the Sadducees likewise re-
jected the Chaldaean belief in astrology, so common
amoug the Jews and Christians of the Middle Ages : —

SADDUCEES 2783

§ 14). Again, the existence of such a momentous
antagonism would be incompatible with the man-
ner in which Josephus speaks of John Hyrcanus,
who was high-priest and king of Judaea thirty-one
years, and who nevertheless, having been previously
a Pharisee, became a Sadducee towards the close
of his life. This Hyrcanus, who died about 106
B. c, had been so inveterately hostile to the Sa-
maritans, that when about three years before his
death he took their city Samaria, he razed it to
the ground; and he is represented to have dug
caverns in various parts of the soil in order to sink
the surface to a level or slope, and tlien to have
diverted streams of water over it, in order to efface
marks of such a city having ever existed. If the
Sadducees had come so near to the Samaritans
as to reject the divine authority of all the books
of the Old Testament except the Pentateuch, it is
very unlikely that Josephus, after mentioning the
death of Hyrcanus, should have spoken of him
as he does in the following manner: "He was
esteemed by God worthy of three of the greatest
privileges, the government of the nation, the dig-
nity of the high-priesthood, and prophecy. For
God was with him and enabled him to know fu-
ture events." Indeed, it may be inferred from
this passage that Josephus did not even deem it
a matter of vital importance whether a high-priest
was a Sadducee or a Pharisee — a latitude of tolersi-
tion which we may be confident he would not have
indulged in, if the divine authority of all the books
of the Old Testament except the Pentateuch, had
been at stake. What probably had more influence
than anything else in occasioning this misconcep-
tion respecting the Sadducees, was the circumstance
that in arguing with them on the doctrine of a
future life, Christ quoted from the Pentateuch only,
although there are stronger texts in favor of the
doctrine in some other books of the Old Testament.
But probable reasons have been already assigned
why Christ, in arguing on this subject with the
Sadducees, referred only to the supposed opinions
of Moses rather than to isolated passages extracted
from the productions of any other sacred writer.

V. In conclusion, it may be proper to notice a
fact, which, while it accounts for misconceptions of
early Christian writers respecting the Sadducees, is
on other grounds well worthy to arrest the atten-
tion. This fact is the rapid disappearance of the
Sadducees from history after the first century, and
the subsequent predominance among the Jews of
the opinions of the Pharisees. Two circumstances,
indirectly, but powerfully, contributed to produce
this result : 1st. The state of the Jews after the
capture of Jerusalem by Titus; and 2dly. The
growth of the Christian religion. As to the first
point it is difficult to over-estimate the consterna-
tion and dismay which the destruction of Jerusalem
occasioned in the minds of sincerely religious Jews.
Their holy city was in ruins ; their holy and beau-
tiful Temple, the centre of their worship and their
love, had been ruthlessly burnt to the ground, and
not one stone of it was left upon another: their
magnificent hopes either of an ideal king who was
to restore the empire of David, or of a Son of Man
who was to appear to them in the clouds of heaven,

" Man is his own Star ; and the soul that can
Render an honest and a perfect man.
Commands all light, all influence, all fate :
Nothing to him falls early, or too late."
Fletcuee's Lines " Upon an Honest Man's Fortune,'^

2784 SADDUCEES

seemed to them for a while Hke empty dreams; and
the whole visible world was, to their imagination,
black with desolation and despair. In this their hour
of darkness and anguish, they naturally turned to
the consolations and hopes of a future state, and the
doctrine of the Sadducees that there was nothing
beyond the present life would have appeared to
them cold, heartless, and hateful. Again, while
they were sunk in the lowest depths of depression,
a new religion which they despised as a heresy and
a superstition, of which one of their own nation
was the object, and another the unrivaled mission-
ary to the heathen, was gradually making its way
among the subjects of their detested conquerors,
the Romans. One of the causes of its success was
undoubtedly the vivid belief in the resurrection of
Jesus, and a consequent resurrection of all man-
kind, which was accepted by its heathen converts
with a passionate earnestness, of which those who
at the present day are familiar from infancy with
the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead can
form only a faint idea. To attempt to check the
progress of this new religion among the Jews by an
appeal to the temporary rewards and punishments
of the Pentateuch, would have been as idle as an
endeavor to check an explosive power by ordinary
mechanical restraints. Consciously, therefore, or
unconsciously, many circumstances combined to
induce the Jews, who were not Pharisees, but who
resisted the new heresy, to rally round the stand-
ard of the Oral Law, and to assert that their holy
legislator, Moses, had transmitted to his faithful
people by word of mouth, although not in writing,
the revelation of a future state of rewards and
punishments. A great belief was thus built up on
a great fiction ; early teaching and custom supplied
the place of evidence; faith in an imaginary fact
produced results as striking as could have flowed
from the fact itself; and the doctrine of a Mosaic
Oral Law, enshrining convictions and hopes deeply
rooted in the human heart, has triumphed for
nearly 1800 years in the ideas of the Jewish peo-
ple. This doctrine, the pledge of eternal life to
them, as the resurrection of Jesus to Christians, is
still maintained by the majority of our Jewish con-
temporaries; and it will probably continue to be
the creed of millions long after the present genera-
tion of mankind has passed away from the earth. «

E. T.
* Literature. — It should be noted, perhaps,
that the Jewish sects are treated of in the lately
discovered Philosophumena or Refutatio omnium
ffceresium, now generally ascribed to Hippolytus,
lib. ix. cc. 18-30. The Sadducees are not named
by Philo, but Grossmann, De Philos. Sadducceortnn,
4 partt. Lips. 1836-38, 4to, has collected from this
Author a large number of passages which he sup-
poses to relate to them. His conjectures, however,
have not been generally adopted by scholars (see

SAINTS

Winer, Bibl. Realwdrterb. and Reuss in Herzog"?
ReaUEncykl., art. Sndducder). The more recent
writers respecting the Sadducees are mentioned
under the art. Phariseks, vol. iii. p. 2479.
Among these, Keim, Derenbourg and Hausrath
may be specially referred to for a view of the latest
researches and opinions. See also Fiirst's Ce-
schichte des Karderthums, 2 vols. Leipz. 1862-65,
and J. R. llanne. Die Pharisder u. Sadducder
als polit. Parteien^ in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. f. unss.
TheoL, 1867, x. 131-179, 239-263. A.

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

2. {2a5(aK'- Sadoc.) A descendant of Zerub-
babel in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matt. i. 14).

SAFFRON (D3"l?, carcdm: Kp6Kos: crocus)
is mentioned only in Cant. iv. 14 with other odorous
substances, such as spikenard, calamus, cinnamon,
etc.; there is not the slightest doubt that "saf-
fron " is the correct rendering of the Hebrew word;
the Arabic Kurkum is similar to the Hebrew, and
denotes the Crocus sativus, or "saffron crocus."
Saffron has from the earliest times been in high
esteem as a perfume: "it is used," says Rosen-
miiller {Bib. Pot. p. 138), "for the same purposes
as the modern pot-pourri." Saffron was also used
in seasoning dishes (Apicius, p. 270); it entered
into the composition of many spirituous extracts
which retained the scent (see 13eckniann's Hist, of
Invent, i. 175, where the whole subject is very fully
discussed). The part of the plant which was used
was the stigma, which was pulled out of the flower
and then dried. Dr. Royle says, that " sometimes
the stigmas are prepared by being submitted to
pressure, and thus made into cake saffron, a form
in which it is still imported from Persia into In-
dia." Hasselquist {Trav. p. 36) states that in
certain places, as around Magnesia, large quanti-
ties of saffron are gathered and exported to different
places in Asia and Europe. Kitto {P/iys. Hist, of
Palest, p. 321) says that the safflower (Carthamus
tinctorius), a very different plant from the crocus,
is cultivated in Syria for the sake of the flowers
which are used in dyeing, but the Karkom no doubt
denotes the Crocus sativus. The word saffron is
derived from the Arabic Zafran, " yellow." This
plant gives its name to Saffron- Walden, in Essex,
where it is largely cultivated. It belongs to the
Natural Order Iridacece. W. H.

* SAINTS (derived, through the French, from
the Latin sanctus) occurs in the O. T. sixteen

times as the translation of t&1"Tp or its cognates,

and nineteen times as the translation of T^pH,
which Hebrew words are with a few exceptions rep-
resented in the LXX. by 0710s and o(nos respect-
ively.^ In some instances when applied to men

a In Germany and elsewhere, some of the most
learned Jews disbelieve in a Mosaic Oral Law ; and
Judaism seems ripe to enter on a new phase. Based
on the Old Testament, but avoiding the mistakes of
the Karaites, it might still have a great future ; but
whether it could last another 1800 years with the be-
lief in a future life, as a revealed doctrine, depending
not on a supposed revelation by Moses, but solely on
scattered texts, in the Hebrew Scriptures, is an in-
teresting subject for speculation.

6 The primary meaning of U^'np, according to
QeeeniuB and Dietrich, is " pure ; " according to Fiirst

" pure," " fresh ; " according to Meier {Hebr. Wur-
zelw.y p. 395) " separated." Hupfeld ascribes to

*T^Dn ( Comm. on Ps. iv. 4) a passive force, " fii-
vored." 'Ayio? (from a^w, afojuiai, veneTate, akin to
aya/oiat, Buttmann's Lexilogus, i. 236 ; F. trans, p. 47)
seems by derivation to signify " very pure," then
" holy." The derivation of oo-ios, " hallowed,"' is less
certain (see Benfey, Griech. Wiirzellex. i. 434 f).
'Oo-ios, common in the classics, in Biblical Greek re-
cedes from use. As a personal epithet it is applied to
Christians but once in the N. T., and then in describ-
ing the oflScial character of a bishop (Tit. i. 8). 'Aytos,

SAINTS

it describes tlieir inliereiit personal character (Ps.
XXX. 4, xxxi. 23, xxxiv. 9, xxxvii. 28, etc.). But
in the in^ority of cases it seems to be used in a
theocratic rather than a moral sense : so that, while
having often a secondary reference, more or less
marked, to holiness as the prescribed and appropri-
ate character of those who bear it, it is applied in-
discriminately (especially in the later books) to the
Israelites, as a nation consecrated to God (Ps. 1. 5,
cxxxii. 9; Dan. vu. 18, 21, 22, 25, 27; cf. viii. 24,
xii. 7; Exod. xix. 6; Num. xvi. 3; 1 Esdr. viii.
70).

In the N. T., where it is found 61 times, it uni-
formly corresponds to the Greek ciyios, and in ita
application to Christians it is not used to designate
them distinctively as respects either their nation-
ality or their locality, nor does it denote outward
separation, nor does it refer — at least primarily —
to their moral characteristics, whether they be
viewed as pardoned sinnei-s, or as the possessors of
an imputed holiness, or of some degree of actual
holiness, or as predestined to perfect holiness, or as
constituting a community the greater or more im-
portant number of whom ai-e holy; but it is an
appellation of all Christians as Christians. On be-
coming C^hristians they become also "saints" (cf.
the use of the singular in Phil. iv. 21). Yet as
in tlie O. T. the inherent sense of the word often
gleams through the theocratic, so in the N. T.,
agreeably to the spiritual nature of the Christian
dispensation, tlie theocratic sense is regarded as " ful-
filled " in the spiritual, the consecration is viewed
more as internal and personal, the ayioi are also
truly riyiacTfXfvoi (cf. 1 Cor. i. 2; Eph. i. 1, 4; 1
Pet. ii. 9.) (Note the fluctuation in the meanujg
of ayid^w in John xvii. 17, 19; and see Heb. ii.
11. ) This sense, however, is one which does not so
much lie in the word itself, as result from the na-
ture of the " people of God," which " the saints "
constitute; accordingly it comes to view with dif-
ferent degrees of distinctness in different passages.
The value of the term for moral uses is greatly
augmented by this very flexibility and possible com-
jirehensiveness of signification.

The term is also applied in the 0. T. several
times (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Job v. 1, xv. 15; Ps.
Ixxxix. 5, 7; Zech. xiv. 5) to the angels as preemi-
nently <'holy"; and in one obscure passage, Hos.
xi. 12 (xii. 1, LXX. yobs ay los), to God himself
(plur. mtijest. cf. Josh. xxiv. 19 ; Prov. ix. 10, xxx.
3.) In the N. T., also, it is thought by many
expositors to be used of holy angels in 1 Thess. iii.
13 (so Jude, ver. 14); in Rev. xv. 3 the reading
"saints" is unsustained by the MSS.

Although the term is used in some passages
which refer chiefly, if not exclusively, to the con-
summation of the Messiah's kingdom in the world
to come (Eph. i. 18; Col. i. 12; cf. Acts xx. 32,

on the other hand, though found as early as Herod.,
is rare in profane Greek, but very common in the
Bible — selected by the sacred writers apparently be-
cause it presents holiness under the aspect of awe

towards a person. Its correlate (27*7(7) first occurs
on occasion of the appearance of God to Moses (Ex.
iii. 5). See G. v. Zezschwitz, Pro/an^rdcitdt, etc., p.
16 f. ; Tittmann, de Syn. in Nov. Test. i. 22 f. ; Cre-
mer, Bibl.-theol. Wdrterb. der N. T. Grdcitdt, pp. 27 f.,
419 f. ; Trench, Syn. of N. T., § Ixxxviii. p. 312 flf.,'
pt.ii. p. 182flf. (Amered.).

a The unrestricted application of the term

SAINTS

2785

XX vi. 18), yet it is nowhere used to designate the
people of God in heaven, as distinguished from
those on earth. Nor is it ever restricted to the
eminently pious in distinction from the mass of
believers.a

In the saints Christ will be glorified at his com-
ing (2 Thess. i. 10), and they will be in some sense
participants in the judgment (1 Cor. vi. 2, 3; cf.
Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30). Nowhere in the
Scriptures are they represented as objects of wor-
ship, nor is their agency invoked.

The resurrection of saints, mentioned Matt,
xxvii. 52, 53, has raised many questions, very few
of which can be answered confidently. That the
saints spoken of were brought to life Irom the dead,
and that they went into Jerusalem after Christ's
resurrection and were seen by many, the language
leaves no doubt. That their toml)s were in the
vicinity of Calvary and were oj^ened contempora-
neously with the earthquake, appears to be implied
(cf. ver. 54). That they were not, or at least were not
solely, departed disciples of Christ seems probable ;
for as yet "many" of them could hardly have
died. Further, the term "saints" applied thus in
a Christian document to deceased Jews who at the
same time are spoken of as /c€/coiyu7jyu€Vwj/,'' still
more the congruities of the case, make it probable
that the word has here a distinctive force and de-
notes Jewish woi'thies (cf. 1 Pet. iii. 5). The
arrangement of the words favors the interpretation
that " they came forth from their sepulchres after
the Lord's resurrection ; " accordingly riy4p6ri<Tav
has been regarded by some expositors as antici-
patory, by others more naturally as signifying
merely "raised to /i/*e," and so distinguishing the
vivification fix)m the quitting the tombs. The
majority, however, have considered the reanimation
and the resurrection as simultaneous: some hold-
ing that both took place at Christ's death, and
that the risen saints first " came into the holy city
after his resurrection;" while others, and by far
the greater number, have preferred to make the
assumption that both were postponed until after
Christ had risen. Possibly we may find in (Tu/xaTa
support for the supposition that they had died
recently (and so were recognized by those to whom
they appeared). Certainly tiiere is nothing either
in the use of this word or of 4ve<pavi(Tdri(Tav,'' nor
in the context of historic realities in which the
incident lies imbedded, to favor the theory that
their appearance was by dream or vision, and con-
fined to the mind of the " many " who saw them.
These last we may, in accordance with Acts x. 41,
plausibly infer to have been followers of Jesus or in
sympathy with him. Whether the risen saints
were clothed with immortal bodies and ascended
with their Lord (as the commentators have been
commonly pleased to assume), or rose to die again:

have continued down to the times of Irenaeus and
Tertullian (Herzog, Recd-Encyk. v. 670) The clause
in the Apostles' Creed relative to " the communion of
saints " is not found in the more ancient forms of that
Confession.

b This word, while it does not seem to warrant any
doctrinal inferences respecting the nature of the inter-
mediate state, does appear to be used in the New Test,
specifically of the righteous dead.

c 'Eju.<^avi^w would be appropriately used,- indeed,
of a spectral appearance (cf. Wisd. of Sol. xvii. 4),
but may designate no less appropriately an appearance
in the body. See John xiv. 22.

2786 SALA

whether they were the only ones among the de-
parted whose condition was affected immediately
by the death of Christ, or were but specimens of
an effect experienced by all the righteous, or the
ante-Christian, dead" — we have no means of
knowing.

But however perplexing our ignorance may be
respecting details, the substantial facts stated above
must be accepted by all who accept the inspired
record. To discard that record as an interpolation,
as a few critics have done, is a procedure in direct
violation of all diplomatic evidence in the case, cor-
roborated as that evidence is by one or two internal
characteristics (particularly r^v ay'iav ■k6\iv, cf.
iv. 5). Nor is there any pretext for regarding it as
a mythical amplification of the fact that graves were
opened by the earthquake. Matthew, to be sure,
is the only evangelist who mentions the incident;
but Mark and Luke concur with him in stating
that the vail of the Temple was rent. Why, then,
should we not here as in other cases consider par-
ticulars not manifestly false, rather as confirmed by
the concurrence of the other testimonies in refer-
ence to a part of the story, than as discredited by
their silence respecting the remainder ? And why
should the existence of apocryphal appendages*
bring suspicion upon this any more than upon
other portions of the sacred narrative upon which
such excrescences were formed ? Nor can the hy-
pothesis of Strauss lay claim to plausibility. He
conceives that the story was fabricated to answer a
twofold Messianic expectation of the times which
had not been fulfilled by Jesus during his ministry,
namely, that the Messiah would effect a general
resurrection of the pious dead, and that, too, a res-
urrection to immortal life. Yet the narrative is
made to meet the first requirement only by exag-
gerating improbably the numerical force of iroAAc^;
and concerning a resurrection to hnmoi-tal life it
gives, as has been already intimated, no hint. Ob-
viously the incident ought not to be contemplated
as an isolated fact, but as one of the accompani-
ments of the crowning event in the history of a
being whose entire earthly career was attended by
miracles. Viewed thus, its blended strangeness
and appropriateness, its " probability of improba-
bility," affords a presumption of its truth.

For a list of the treatises which the passage has
called forth, the reader may see Hase's Leben Jesu,
1865, § 119 (5th ed.). An idea of the speculations
in which writers have indulged here may be gath-
ered from Calmefs dissertation, translated in the
Journal of Sacred Lit. for Jan. 1848, pp. 112-125.

J. H. T.

SA'LA {1a\a' Sale). Salah, or Shelah,
the father of Eber (Luke iii. 35).

SA'LAH (n jtt? [a missile, weapon ; also
tpi'out] : 5aA<£: Sale). The son of Arphaxad and

o There is no propriety in associating, as many
commentators do, this incident in Matt, witli the state-
ment relative to " the spirits in prison " (1 Pet. iii. 19).
Although Peter's language is generally rendered in the
versions and commentaries, " who were sometime dis-
obedient," and so Christ's preaching represented as
having taken place after his death, yet such a trans-
lation is given in disregard of the fact that aneiOria-aa-i.,
agreeing as it does with a noun which has the article
yet itself wanting it, is properly a predicative, not an
attributive, participle. Says Donaldson ( Greek Gram.

SALAMIS

father of Eber (Gen. x. 24, xi. 12-14; Luke iii. 35).
The name is significant of extension, the cognate
verb being applied to the spreading out of the
roots and branches of trees (Jer. xvii. 8; Ez. xvii.
6). It thus seems to imply the historical fact of
the gradual extension of a branch of the Semitic
race from its original seat in Northern Assyria
towards the river Euphrates. A place with a
similar name in Nortliern Mesopotamia is noticed
by Syrian writers (Knobel, in Gen. xi.); but we
can hardly assume its identity with the Salah of
the Bible. Ewald {Gesch. i. ^54) and Von Bohlen
{Introd. to Gen. ii. 205) regard the name as purely
fictitious, the former explaining it as a son or off-
spring, the latter as the father of a race. That
the name is significant does not prove it fictitious,
and the conclusions drawn by these writers are
unwarranted. [The proper form of this name is
Shelah, which see. — A.] W. L. B.

SAL'AMIS (SoAajUis [prob. fr. oAs, sea, as
being near the shore] : Salamis), a city at the
east end of the island of Cyprus, and the first place
visited by Paul and Barnabas, on the first mission-
ary journey, after leaving the mainland at Seleucia.
Two reasons why they took this course obviously
suggest themselves, namely, the fact that Cyprus
(and probably Salamis) was the native place of
Barnabas, and the geographical proximity of this
end of the island to Antioch. But a further reason
is indicated by a circumstance in the narrative
(Acts xiii. 5). Here alone, among all the Greek
cities visited by St. Paul, we read expressly of " syn-
agogues " in the plural. Hence we conclude that
there were many Jews in Cyprus. And this is in
harmony with what we read elsewhere. To say
nothing of possible mercantile relations in very
early times [Chitti31; Cypkus], Jewish residents
in the island are mentioned during the period
when the Seleucidae reigned at Antioch (1 Mace.
XV. 23). In the reign of Augustus the Cyprian
copper-mines were farmed to Herod the Great
(Joseph. Ant. xvi. 4, § 5), and this would proba-
ably attract many Hebrew families: to which we
may add evidence to the same effect from Philo
(Legat. ad Caium) at the very time of St. Paul's
journey. And again at a later period, in the
reigns of Trajan and Hadrian, we are informed of
dreadful tumults here, caused by a vast multitude
of Jews, in the course of which " the whole popu-
lous city of Salamis became a desert" (Milman's
Hist, of the Jeios, iii. Ill, 112). We may well
believe that from the Jews of Salamis came some
of those early Cypriote Christians, who are so
prominently mentioned in the account of the first
spreading of the Gospel beyond Palestine (Acts
xi. 19, 20), even before the fii-st missionary expe-
dition. Mnason (xxi. 16) might be one of them.
Nor ought Mark to be forgotten here. He was at
Salamis with Paul, and his own kinsman Barnatias;
and again he was there with the same kinsman after

3d ed., p. 532) : " The participle ivithout the article
can never be rightly rendered by the relative sentence
with a definite antecedent, which is equivalent to the
participle loUh an article " (cf. The New Cratylus, §
304 f.). Green in his iV. T. Grammar {^. 64, ed. 1862)
renders the passage, " He went and preached to the
imprisoned spirits on their being once on a time dis-
obedient, when," etc.

b On this point see Evang. Nicod. (2d Part) c. 17 f. ;
Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T , pp. 780 f., 810 f. ; Tisch.
Evang. Apocr. p. 301 f.

SALASADAI

the misunderstanding with St. Paul and the separa-
tion (xv. 39).

Salamis was not far from the modern Famn-
gousla. It was situated near a river called the
I'edioeus, on low ground, which is in fact a contin-
uation of the plain running up into the interior
toward the place where Nicosia, the present capi-
tal of Cyprus, stands. We must notice in regard
to Salamis that its harbor is siwken of by Greek
writers as very good ; and that one of the ancient
tables lays down a road between this city and
pAiMios, the next place which Paul and Barnabas
visited on tlieir journey. Salamis again has rather
an eminent position in subsequent Christian his-
tory. Constantine or his successor rebuilt it, and
called it Constantia (" Salamis, quae nunc Con-
stantia dicitur," Hieronym. /V<«7e//i.), and, while it
had this name, Epiphanius was one of its bishops.

Of the travellers who have visited and described
Salamis, we must particularly mention Pococke
{Desc. of the Jurist, ii. 214) and Ross {Jitisen nack
Kos, Ildlikarnassos, Jihotlos, unci Cypern, pp. 118-
125). These travellers notice, in the neighborhood
of Salamis, a vill.age named St. Stiujins, which is
doubtless a reminiscence of Sergius Paulus, and a
large Byzantine church bearing the name of <S/.
Bdniithiis, and associated with a legend concerning
the discovery of his relics. The legend will be
found in Cedrenus (i. 618, ed. Bonn). [Bauna-
BAs; Skhgius Paulus.] J. S. II.

SALAS'ADAI [4 syl.] ([.\lex.] :2a\a(radai;
[Vat. Rom.] 5apa<ro5at; [Sin. :S.api(raSai, MS.
19] 2ovpt<7o5f ), a variation for Unnsndui {^ovpia-
aSai, Num. i. 6) in Jud. viii. 1. [Zurishaduai.]

B. f. w.

SALATHIEL (bs^n^Stp, [bw\n^tt7:]
2,a\aOirf\'- SahUhiel: " I have ixsked God " "), son
of Jechonias king of Judah, and father of Zoroba-
bel, according to Matt. i. 12; but son of Neri, and
father of Zorobabel, according to Luke iii. 27;
while the genealogy in 1 Chr. iii. 17-19, leaves it
doubtful whether he is the son of Assir or Jecho-
nias, and makes Zorobabel his nephew. (Zekub-
BAiiEL.] Upon the incontrovertible principle that
no genealogy would assign to the true son and heir
of a king any inferior and private parentage' whereas,
on the contrary, the son of a private person would
naturally be placed in the royal pedigree on his be-
coming the rightful heir to the throne; we may
assert, with the utmost confidence, that St. Luke
gives us the true state of the case, when he informs
us that Salathiel was the son of Neri, and a de-
scendant of Nathan the son of David.'* And from
his insertion in the royal pedigree, both in 1 Chr.
and St. Matthew's Gospel, after the childless Jecho-

SALCAH

278T

" Possibly with an allusion to 1 Sam. i. 20, 27, 28.
See Broughton's Our Lord's Faryiily.

b It is woFth noting that Josephus speaks of Zoro-
babel as " the son of Salathiel, of the posterity of Da-
vid, and of the tribe of Judah " {A. J. xi. 3, § 10).
Had he believed him to be the son of Jeconiah, of
whom he had spoken (x. 11, § 2), he could hardly
have failed to say so. Comp. x. 7, § 1.

c " Of Jechonias God sware that he should die leav-
ing no child behind him ; wherefore it were flat athe-
ism to pnite that he naturally became lather to Sala-
thiel. Though St. Luke had never left us SalathieFs
family up to Nathan, whole brother to Solomon, to
show that Salathiel was of another family, God's oath
should make us believe that, without any further rec-
ord " (Broughton, ut supra).

nias,'' we infer, with no less confidence, that, on the
failure of Solomon's line, he was the next heir to
the throne of David. The appearance of Salathiel
in the two pedigrees, though one deduces the
descent from Solomon and the other from Nathan,
is thus perfectly simple, and, indeed, necessary;
whereas the notion of Salathiel being called Neri's
son, as Yardley and others have thought, because
he married Neri's daughter, is palpably absurd on
the supposition of his being the son of Jechonias.
On this last principle, you viiiiht have not two
but about a million different pedigrees between Je-
chonias and Christ:*' and yet you have no ra-
tional account, why there should actually be more
than one. It may therefore be considered as cer-
tain, that Salathiel was the son of Neri, and the
heir of Jechoniah. The question whether he was
the father of Zerubbabel will be considered under
that article.^ Besides the passages already cited,
Salathiel occurs in 1 Esdr. v. 5, 48, 56, vi. 2; 2
Ksdr. V. 16.

As regards the orthography of the name, it has,
as noted above, two forms in Hel^rew. The con-
tracted form [Shaltiel] is peculiar to Haggai, who
uses it three times out of five; while in the first
and last verse of his prophecy he uses the full form,
which is also found in l*!zr. iii. 2; Neh. xii. 1.
The LXX. everywhere have 'S.uXadi'fiX, while the
A. V. has (probably with an eye to correspondence
with Matt, and Luke) Salathiel in 1 Chr. iii. 17,
but everywhere else in the O. T. Shealtiel.
[Genkalogy of Jesus Christ; Jehoiachin.]

A. C. H.

SAL'CAH/ (nD/P [wamleiinff, viigration^

Fiirst] : 'S.fKxo-U 'Axa, 2eAa [Vat. EAx"] '■> '^'®^-
A(reAx«'» E^X«> SeAxo: Snlicha, Selcha). A
city named in the early records of Israel as the ex-
treme limit of Bashan (Deut. iii. 10; Josh. xiii.
11) and of the tribe of Gad (1 Chr. v. 11). On
another occasion the name seems to denote a dis-
trict rather than a town (Josh. xii. 5). By Eu-
sebius and Jerome it is merely mentioned, appar-
ently without their having had any real knowledge
of it.

It is doubtless identical with the town of Sul-
hhnd, which stands at the southern extremity of
the Jebel Hauran, twenty miles S. of Kiinawai
(the ancient Kenath), which was the southern out-
post of the Leja, the Argob of the Bible. Sulkhad
is named by both the Christian and Mohammedan
historians of the middle ages (Will, of Tyre, xvi.
8, "Selcath;" Abulfefla, in Schultens' Index
geofjr. "Sarchad"). It was visited by Burckhardt
{Syi-ia, Nov. 22, 1810), Seetzen and others, and
more recently by Porter, who describes it at some

d See a curious calculation in Blackstone's Com-
7nent. ii. 203, that in the 20th degree of ancestry every
man has above a million of ancestors, and in the 40th
upwards of a million millions.

I e The theory of two Salathiels, of whom each had
I a son called Zerubbabel, though adopted by Hottinger
and J. G. Vossius, is scarcely worth mentioning, ex-
cept as a curiosity.

/ One of the few instances of our translators hay-
ing represented the Hebrew Caph by e. Their com-
mon practice is to use ch for it — as indeed they have
done on one occurrence of this very name. [Salchah ;
and compare Caleb ; Caphtob ; Carmel ; Cozbi ;
CusH, etc.]

2788 SALCHAH

length (Five Years, ii. 176-116). Its identifica-
tion with Salcah appears to be due to Gesenius
(Burckhardt's Reistn, p. 507).

Immediately below Sulkhad commences the plain
of the great Euphrates desert, which appears to
stretch with hardly an undulation from here to
Basra on the Persian Gulf. The town is of consid-
erable size, two to three miles in circumference,
surrounding a castle on a lofty isolated hill, which
rises 300 or 400 feet above the rest of the place
(Porter, pp. 178, 179). One of the gateways of the
castle liears an inscription containing the date of
A. I). 246 (180). A still earlier date, namely, A. D.
196 (Septimius Severus), is found on a grave-stone
(185). Other scanty particulars of its later history
will be found in Porter. The hill on which the
castle stands was probably at one time a crater, and
its sides are still covered with volcanic cinder and
blocks of lava. G.

* Mr. Porter describes the present condition of
this city in his Giant Cities of Bashan, p. 76 f.
Though long deserted, "five hundred of its houses
are still standing, and from 300 to 400 families
might settle in it at any moment without laying a
stone, or exi^ending an hour's labor on repairs.
The circumference of the town and castle together
is about three miles. The open doors, the empty
houses, the rank grass and weeds, the long, strag-
gling brambles in the doorways and windows,
formed a strange, impressive picture which can
never leave my memory. Street after street we
tra\ersed, the tread of our horses awakening mourn-
ful echoes and startling the foxes from their dens
in the palaces of Salcah. The castle rises to the
height of 300 feet, the southern point of the moun-
tain range of Bashan. The view from the top em-
braces the plain of Bashan stretching out on the
west to Hermon; the plain of Moab on the south,
to the horizon ; and the plain of Arabia on the
east beyond the, range of vision. . . . From this
one spot I saw upwards of 30 towns, all of them,
so far as I could see with my telescope, habitable
like Salcah, but entirely deserted." See the
prophet's remarkable prediction of this desolation,
Jer. xlviii. 15-29. H.

SAL'CHAH (n^bO: 'EAxa: Selcha). The
form in which the name, elsewhere more accu-
rately given Salcah, appears in Deut. iii. 10

only. The Tar gum Psevdojon. gives it S"^p"117D,
t. c. Selucia; though which Seleucia they can have
supposed was here intended it is difficult to im-
agine. G.

SA'LEM (Obir, i. e. Shalem [whole, perfect] :
"SaK-fjiuL' Salem). 1. The place of which Mel-
chizedek was king (Gen. xiv. 18; Heb. vii. 1, 2).
No satisfactory identification of it is perhaps possi-
ble. The indications of the narrative are not suffi-
cient to give any clew to its position. It is not
safe even to infer, as some have done,« that it lay
between Damascus and Sodom; for though it is
said that the king of Sodom — who had probably
regained his own city after the retreat of the As-
syrians — went out to meet (HSHp 7) '' Abram,
yet it is also distinctly stated that this was after
Abram had returned (^iL^'W "^"^nS) from the
slaughter of the kings. Indeed, it is not certain

SALEM

ceoe^^

that there is any connection of time or place
tween Abram's encounter with the king of Sodom
ajid the appearance of Melchizedek. Nor, sup-
posing this last doubt to be dispelled, is any clew
afforded by the mention of the Valley of Shaveh,
since the situation even of that is more than un-
certain.

Ur. Wolff — no mean authority on oriental
questions — in a striking passage in his last work,
implies that Salem was — what the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews understood it to be — a
title, not the name of a place. " Melchizedek of
old . . . had a royal title ; he was ' King of
Righteousness,' in Hebrew Melchi-zedek. And he
was also ' King of Peace,' Melek-Salem. And
when Abraham came to his tent he came forth
with bread and wine, and was called ' the Priest of
the Highest,' and Abraham gave him a portion of
his spoil. And just so Wolff's friend in the desert
of Meru in the kingdom of Khiva . . . whose
name is Abd-er-Rahman, which means ' Slave of
the merciful God ' . . . has also a royal title. He
is called Shahe-Adaalat, ' King of Righteousness '
— the same as Melchizedek in Hebrew. And when
he makes peace between kings he bears the title,
Shahe Soolkh, ' King of Peace ' — in Hebrew Me-
lek-Salem.^''

To revert, however, to the topographical ques-
tion ; two main opinions have been current from
the earliest ages of interpretation. 1. That of the
Jewish commentators, who — from Onkelos ( Tar-
(jum) and Josephus {B. J. vi. 10; Ant. i. 10, § 2,
vii. 3, § 2) to Kalisch (Comm. on Gen. p. 360) —
with one voice affirm that Salem is Jerusalem, on
the ground that Jerusalem is so called in Ps. Ixxvi.
2, the Psalmist, after the manner of poets, or from
some exigency of his poem, making use of the ar-
chaic name in preference to that in common use.
This is quite feasible; but it is no argument for
the identity of Jerusalem with the Salem of Mel-
chizedek. See this well put by Reland (Pal. p.
833). The Christians of the 4th pentury held the
same belief with the Jews, as is evident from an ex-
pression of Jerome (" nostri omnes," £p. ad Evan-
gelum, § 7).

2. Jerome himself, however, is not of the same
opinion. He states (Fp. ad Evang. § 7) without
hesitation, though apparently (as just observed)
alone in his belief, that the Salem of Melchizedek
was not Jerusalem, but a town near Scythopolis,
which in his day was still called Salem, and where
the vast ruins of the palace of Melchizedek were
still to be seen. Elsewhere (Onom. " Salem ") he
locates it more precisely at eight Roman miles from
Scythopolis, and gives its then name as Salumias.
further, he identifies this Salem with the Salim
(2aA€j/i) of St. John the Baptist. That a Salem
existed where St. Jerome thus places it there need
be no doubt. Indeed, the name has been recovered
at the identical distance below Beisdn by Mr. Van
de Velde, at a spot otherwise suitable for ^non.
But that this Salem, Salim, or Salumias was the
Salem of Melchizedek, is as uncertain as that Jeru-
salem was so. The ruins were probably as much
the ruins of Melchizedek's palace as the remains at
Ramet eUKhaUl, three miles north of Hebron, are
those of " Abraham's house." Nor is the decision
assisted by a consideration of Abram's homewai-d
route. He probably brought back his party by

a For instance, Bochart, Pfudeg, ii. 4 ; Ewald, Gesch.
I. 410.

b The force of this word is occurrere in obviam (Q«-
seniufl, T/ies. p. 1233 b).

SALEM

the road along the Ghor as far as Jericho, and then
turuiug to the right ascended to the upper level of
the country in the direction of Manu-e; but whether
he crossed the Jordan at the Jisr Benat Yak-ub
above the Lake of Gennesaret, or at the Jis?' Me-
jamia below it, he vyould equally pass by both Scy-
thopolis and Jerusalem. At the same time it must
be confessed that the distance of Salem (at least
eighty miles from the probable position of Sodom)
makes it difficult to suppose that the king of Sodom
can liave advanced so far to meet Abram, adds its
weight to the statement that the meeting took
place after Abram had returned, — not during his
return, — and is thus so far in favor of Salem being
Jerusalem.

3. Professor Ewald (Gcschichle, i. 410, note)
pronounces that Salem is a town on the further
side of Jordan, on the road from Damascus to
Sodom, quoting at the same time John iii. 23, but
the writer has in vain endeavored to discover any
authority for this, or any notice of the existence of
the name in that direction either in former or re-
cent times.

4. A tradition given by Eupolemus, a writer
known only through fragments preserved in the
Prwparatiu Evantjelica of Eusebius (ix. 17), dif-
fers in some important points from the Biblical
account. According to this the meeting took
place in the sanctuary of the city Argarizin, which
is interpreted by Eupolemus to mean '• the Moun-
tain of the Most « High." Argarizin * is of
course liar Genzzim, Mount Gerizira. The
source of the tradition is, therefore, probably Sa-
maritan, since the encounter of Abram and Mel-
chizedek is one of the events to which the Samari-
tans lay claim for Mount Gerizim. But it may
also proceed from the identification of Salem with
Shechem, which lying at the foot of Gerizim would
easily be confounded with the mountain itself.
[See SiiALEM.]

5. A Salem is mentioned in Judith iv. 4, among
the places which were seized and fortified by the
Jews on the approach of Holofernes. " The valley
of Salem," as it appears in the A. V. (rbp avKuva
^a\r]ij.), is possibly, as Keland has ingeniously
suggested {Pal. "Salem," p. 977), a corruption of
ets avKS)va eis 2aArj;u — " into the plain to Sa-
lem." if Av.\dl)u is here, accordmg to frequent
usage, the Jordan <^ Valley, then the Salem referred
to must surely be that mentioned by Jerome, and
already noticed. But in this passage it may be
with equal probability the broad plain of the
Mukhna which stretches from Ebal and Gerizim
on the one hand, to the hills on which Saliui stands
on the other, which is said to be still called the
"plain of Salim"'' (Porter, Handbook, p. 340 a),
and through which runs the central north road of
the country. Or, as is perhaps still more likely, it

SALEM

2789

a Professor Stanley seems to have been the first to
call attention to this (S. Sf P. p. 249). See Eupolemi
Fragmenta, auctore G. A. Kuhlmey (Berlin, 1840) ;
one of those excellent monographs which we owe to
the German academical custom of demanding a trea-
tise at each step in honors.

b Pliny uses nearly the same form — Argaris ( H.
N. V. 14).

c Av\a}v is commonly employed in Palestine topog-
raphy for the great valley of the Jordan (see Eusebius
and Jerome, Onomasticon, " Anion "). But in the
Book of Judith it is used with much less precision in
the general sense of a valley or plain.

d The writer could not succeed (in 1861) in eliciting

refers to another Salim near Zerin (Jezreel), and to
the plain which runs up between those two places,
as ftir as Jenin, and which lay directly in the route
of the Assyrian army. There is nothing to show
that the invaders reached as far into the interior of
the country as the plain of the Mukhna. And the
other places enumerated in the verse seem, as far as
they can be recognized, to be points which guarded
the main approaches to the interior (one of the
chief of which was by Jezreel and En-gannim), not
towns in the interior itself, like Shechem or the
Salem near it.

2. (D./-t^ : 4v ilp-hvri' in pace^), Ps. \xx\i. 2.
It seems to be agreed on all hands that Salem is
here employed for Jerusalem, but whether aa a
mere abbreviatioji to suit some exigency of the
poetry, and point the allusion to the peace (snlem)
which the city enjoyed through the protection of
God, or whether, after a well-known habit of poets/
it is an antique name preferred to the more modem
and familiar one, is a question not yet decided.
The latter is the opinion of the Jewish connnen-
tators, l)Ut it is grounded on their belief that the
Salem of Melchizedek was the city which after-
wards became Jerusalem. This is to beg the
question. See a remarkable passage in Geiger's
Urschrift^ etc., pp. 74-7U.

The antithesis in verse 1 between " Judali " and
" Israel " would seem to imply that some sacred
place in the northern kingdom is being contrasted
with Zion, the sanctuary of the south. And if
there were in the Bible any sanction to the identifi-
cation of Salem with Shechem (noticed above), the
passivge might be taken as referring to the con-
tinued relation of God to the kingdom of Israel.
But there are no materials even for a conjecture
on the point. Zion the sanctuary, however, being
named in the one member of the vefse, it is toler-
ably certain that Salem, if Jerusalem, must denote
the secular part of the city — a distinction which
has been already noticed [vol. ii. p. 1321] as fre-
quently occurring and implied in the Psalms and
Prophecies. G.

* In the passage quoted above, " In Judah is
God known, his name is great in Israel," we recog-
nize not " antithesis " but the synonymous paralleU
ism of Hebrew poetry — each term being generic
and designating the whole nation, as in Ps. cxiv.
2 — " Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his
dominion" — where the words will bear no other
construction. In the next verse — " In Salem also
is his tabernacle, and his dweUing-jilace in Zion" —
we understand the names as also cognate, not " con-
trasted," each indicating the Holy City as the
special seat of divine worship. We are not able
to trace in the sacred writings, referred to above,
any clear distinction between the secular Jerusalem

this name for any part of the plain. The name, given
in answer to repeated questions, for the eastern branch
or leg of the Mukhna was always WafJy Sajtia.

e The above is the reading of the Vulgate and of
the " Gallican Psalter." But in the Liber Psalmorum
juxta Hebrai cam vert tatem, in the Divina Bibliotheca
included in the Benedictine edition of Jerome's works,
the reading is Salem.

f The Arab poets are said to use the same abbre-
viation (Ge.«enius, Thes. p. 1422 b). The preference
of an archaic to a modern name will surprise no
student of poetry. Few things are of more constant
occurrence.

2790 SALIM

and the sacred Zioii, but find the phrases used in-
terchangeably, each sometimes with a secular refer-
ence, and each sometimes in a spiritual relation.

S. VV.

SA'LIM (2aAc^/x; Alex. SaWfifj.: Salim).
A place named (John iii. 23) to denote the situa-
tion of JEnon, the scene of St. John's last bap-
tisms — Salim being the well-known town or spot,
and ^non a place of fountains, or other water,
near it. There is no statement in the narrative
itself fixing the situation of Salim, and the only
direct testimony we jx)ssess is that of Eusebius and
Jerome, who both affirm unhesitatingly (Ononi.
"^non") that it existed in their day near the
Jordan, eight Koman miles south of Scythopolis.
Jerome adds (under "Salem") that its name was
then Salumias. Elsewhere (Ep. ad Evangelum,
§§ 7, 8) he states that it was identical with the
Salem of Melchizedek.

Various attempts have been more recently made
to determine the locality of this interesting spot.

1. Some (as Alford, Greek Test, ad loc.) pro-
pose Shilhim and Ain, in the arid country far
in the south of Judsea, entirely out of the circle
of associations of St. John or our Lord. Others
identify it with the Shalim of 1 Sam. ix. 4, but
this latter place is itself unknown, and the name

in Hebrew contains 17, to correspond with which
the name in St. John should be 2€7aA.e//t or

2. Dr. Robinson suggests the modern village of
Salim, three miles E. of Nnblus {Bibl. Res. iii.
333), but this is no less out of the circle of St.
John's ministrations, and is too near the Samari-
tans; and although there is some reason to believe
that the village contains " two sources of living
water" {ibid. 298), yet this is hardly sufficient for
the abundance of deep water implied in the narra-
tive. A writer in the Colonhd Cli. Cliron., No.
cxxvi. 464, who concurs in this opinion of Dr.
Robinson, was told of a village an hour east (?) of
Salim ''named Ain-un, with a copious stream of
water." The district east of Salim is a blank
in the maps. Yanun lies about li hour S. E.
of Salim, but this can hardly be the place in-
tended; and in the description of Van de Velde,
who visited it (ii. 303), no stream or spring is
mentioned.

3. Dr. Barclay {City, etc., p. 564) is filled with
an "assured conviction " that Salim is to be found
in \V(uly Seleim, and Ji^non in the copious springs
of Ain Farak {ibid. p. 559), among the deep and
intricate ravines some five miles N. E. of Jerusalem.
This certainly has the name in its favor, and, if
the glowing description and pictorial wood-cut of
Dr. Barclay may be trusted — has water enough,
and of sufficient depth for the purpose.

4. The name of Salim. has been lately discov-
ered by Mr, Van de Velde {Syr. 4' Pal. ii. 345,
346) in a position exactly in accordance with the
notice of Eusebius, namely, six English miles south
of Beisan, and two miles west of the Jordan. On
the northern base of Tell Redcjhah is a site of
ruins, and near it a Mussulman tomb, which is called
by the Arabs Sheykh Salim (see also Memoir, p.
345). Dr. Robinson (iii. 333) complains that the
name is attached only to a Mussulman sanctuary,
and also that no ruins of any extent are to be
found on the spot; but with regard to the first
objection, even Dr. Robinson does not dispute that
the name is there, and that the locality is in the

SALMA

closest agreement with the notice of Eusebius.
As to the second it is only necessary to pouit to
Kefr-Saba, where a town (Antipatris), which so
late as the time of the destruction of Jerusalem
was of great size and extensively fortified, has
absolutely disappeared. The career of St. John
has been examined in a former part of this work,
and it has been shown with great probability that
his progress was from south to north, and that the
scene of his last baptisms was not far distant from
the spot indicated by Eusebius, and now recovered
by Mr. Van de Velde. [Jordan, vol. ii. p. 1457.]
Salim fulfills also the conditions implied in the
name of ^non (springs), and the direct statement
of the text, that the place contained abundance
of water. " The brook of Wady CImsneh runs
close to it, a splendid fountain gushes out beside
the Wely, and rivulets wind about in all directions.
. . . . Of few places in Palestine could it
so truly be said, 'Here is much water' " {Syr. ^
Pal. ii. 346). [Ji:xox, Amer. ed.]

A tradition is mentioned by Reland {Palwsiina,
p. 978) that Salim was the native place of Simon
Zelotes. This in itself seems to imply that its posi-
tion was, at the date of the tradition, believed to
be nearer to Galilee than to Judaea. G.

SAL'LAI [2 syl.] C^bp, in pause "^bp [perh.
basket-maker, Ges.] : 'S,r}\i; [Vat. FA., though
not properly separated from preceding word,] Alex.
SrjAet: Sellai). 1. A Benjamite, who with 928
of his tribe settled in Jerusalem alter the Captivity
(Neh. xi. 8).

2. (2oAot: [Vat. Alex. FA.i omit; FA.^ 2oA-
Aai'.] ) The head of one of the courses of priests
who went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Neh.^^
xii. 20). In Neh. xii. 7 he is called Sai>lu. ^m

SAL'LU (-Ivp [iceighed]: -^aXdu, St?^^™
Alex. 2aAa» in 1 Chr.: Salo, Sellum). 1, The
son of MeshuUam, a Benjamite M'ho returned and
settled in Jerusalem after the^ Captivity (1 Chr. ix.
7; Neh. xi. 7).

2. (Om. in Vat. MS.; [also in Rom., Alex.,
FA.l; FA.3] 2aAouot; [Comp. SaAoi;:] Sellum.)
The head of one of the courses of priests who re-
turned with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 7). Called also
Sallai.

SALLU'MUS (2oAoC;uos; [Vat. Aid.] Alex.
2oAAoi}/Aos: Salumus). Shallum (1 PIsdr. ix.
25; comp. Ezr. x, 24).

SAL'MA, or S AL'MON (H^btt?, «p^t2?,

or "j'lttbji? [clothed, a garment, Ges.] : [in Ruth]
2aA/iwj/ [Vat. ^aXixap] ; [in 1 Chr. ii. 11,] Alex.
"ZaKfidv, but 'ZaKuiixuv both MSS. in Ruth iv.
[rather 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54; in N. T., SaA/tcoj/] :
Salmon [in Ruth and N. T., Salma in 1 Chr.]).
Son of Nahshon, the prince of the children of
Judah, and father of Boaz, the husband of Ruth.
Salmon's age is distinctly marked by that of his
father Nahshon, and with this agrees the statement
in 1 Chr. ii. 51, 64, that he was of the sons of
Caleb, and the father, or head man of Bethlehem-
Ephratah, a town which seems to have been within
the territory of Caleb (1 Chr. ii. 50, 51). [Eph-
ratah; Bethlehem.] On the entrance of the
Israelites into Canaan, Salmon took Rahab of Jeri-
cho to be his wife, and from this union sprang the
Christ. [Rahab.] From the circumstance of Sal-
mon having lived at the time of the conquest of
Canaan, as well as from his being the first pro-

SALMAN ASAR

prietor of Bethlehem, where his family continued so
many centuries, perhaps till the reign of Domitian
(Euseb. Kecks. Hist. ii. 20), he may be called the
founder of the house of David. Besides Beth-
lehem, the Netophathites, the house of Joab, the
Zorites, and several other families, looked to Sal-
mon as their head (1 Chr. ii. 54, 55).

Two circumstances connected with Salmon have
caused some perplexity: one, the variation in the
orthography of his name, the other, an apparent
variation in his genealogy.

As regards the first, the variation in proper
names (whether caused by the fluctuations of copy-
ists, or whether they existed in practice, and were
favored by the significance of the names), is so
extremely common, that such slight diflferences as
those in the three forms of this name are scarcely
worth noticing. Compare e. g. the different forms
of the name Shimea, the son of Jesse, in 1 Sara,
xvi. 9: 2 Sam. xiii. 3; 1 Chr. ii. 13: or of Simon
Peter, in Luke v. 4, &c. ; Acts xv. 14. See other
examples in Hervey's (ieneal. of our Lord, cc. vi.
and X. Moreover, in this case, the variation from
Sahna to Salmon takes place in two consecutive
verses, namely, Ruth iv. 20, 21, where the notion
of two different persons being meant, though in
some degree sanctioned by the authority of Dr.
Kennicott {Dissert, i. 184, 543), is not worth re-
futing.« As regards the Salma of 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54,
his connection with Bethlehem identifies him with
the son of Nahshon, and the change of the final

n into M belongs doubtless to the late date of the
book of Chronicles. The name is so written also
in 1 Chr. ii. 11. But the truth is that the sole
reason for endeavoring to make two persons out of
Salma and Salmon, is the wish to lengthen the
line between Salma and David, in order to meet the
false chronology of those times.

The variation in Salma's genealogy, which has
induced some to think that the Salma of 1 Chr. ii.
51, 64 is a ditterent person from the Salma of 1
Chr. ii. 11, is more apparent than real. It arises
from the circumstance that Bethlehem Ephratah,
which was Salmon's inheritance, was part of the
territory of Caleb, the grandson of Ephratah ; and
this caused him to be reckoned among the sons of
Caleb. But it is a complete misunderstanding of
the language of such topographical genealogies to
suppose that it is meant to be asserted that Salma
was the literal son of Caleb. Mention is made of
Salma only in Ruth iv. 20, 21; 1 Chr. ii. 11, 51,
54; Matt. i. 4, 5; Luke iii. 32. The questions
of his age and identity are discussed in the Geneal.
of our Lord, cc. iv. and ix. ; Jackson, Chran.
Antiq. i. 171; Hales, Analysis, iii. 44; Burring-
ton, Geneal. i. 189 ; Dr. Mill, P^/if/ic. of our Lord's
Geneal. p. 123, &c. , A. C. H.

S ALMANACS AR {Salmannsar). Shalman-
ESEK, king of Assyria (2 Esdr. xiii. 40).

SAL'MON (I'l^b^ [shady, Ges.; perh. ter-

SALMON

2791

a Eusebius {Chron. Canon, lib. i. 22) has no mis-
giving as to tlie identity of Salma.

6 See a work by Reuss, Der acht und sechzigste Psalm,
ein Denkmal exegelischer Noth und Kunst. zu Eliren
unser ganzen Zunft, Jena, 1851. Independently of its
many obscure allusions, tiie 68th Psalm contains thir-
teen ttTTfli^ Xey6/u.eva, including Il^tTri. It may be
observed that this word is scarcely, as Gesenius sug-
gests, analogous to ]"^2lbrT, C"^"TSn, Hiphils of

race-like, Furst] : ^eA/iw; [Vat. Alex. Ep^wj/:]
Salmon, Judg. ix. 48). The name of a hill near
Shechem, on which Abimelech and his followers
cut down the boughs with which they set the
tower of Shechem on fire. Its exact position is
not known.

It is usually supposed that this hill is mentioned
in a verse of perhaps the most diflBcult of all the
Psalms'* (Ps. Ixviii. 14); and this is probable,
though the passage is peculiarly difficult, and the
precise allusion intended by the poet seems hope-
lessly lost. Commentators differ from each other;
and Fiirst, within 17G pages of his Ilandworter-

buch, differs from himself (see Sbtt? and ]"lttb^).
Indeed, of six distinguished modern commentators
— De Wette, Hitzig, Ewald, Hengstenberg, De-
litzsch, and Hupfeld — no two give distinctly the
same meaning; and Mr. Keble, in his admirable
Version of the Psalms, gives a translation which,
though poetical, as was to be expected, differs from
any one of those suggested by these six scholars.
This is not the place for an exhaustive examina-
tion of the passage. It may be mentioned, how-
ever, that the literal translation of the words

I'l^ Y^5 ^!?tf"* ^ is " Thou makest it snow," or
" It snows," with liberty to use the word either in
the past or in the future tense. As notwithstand-
ing ingenious attempts, this supplies no satisfactory
meaning, recourse is had to a translation of doubt-
ful validity, " Thou makest it white as snow," or
" It is white as snow" — words to which various
metaphorical meanings have l)een attributed. The
allusion which, through the Lexicon of Gesenius, is
most generally recei\ed, is that the words refer to
the ground being snow-wljite with bones after a
defeat of the Canaanite kings; and this may be
accepted by those who wjU admit the scarcely per-
missible meaning, " white as snow," and who can-
not rest satisfied without attaching some definite
signification to the p;xssage. At the same time it
is to be remembered that the figure is a very harsh
one ; and that it is not really justified by passages
quoted in illustration of it from Latin classical
writers, such as, " can)pique ingentes ossibus aJ-
bent" (Virg. ^£'«. xii. 36), and " humanis ossibus
albet humus " (Ovid, Fast. i. 558), for in these
cases the word " bones " is actually used in the
text, and is not left to be supplied by the imagina-
tion. Granted, however, that an allusion is made
to bones of the slain, there is a divergence of
opinion as to whether Salmon was mentioned sim-
ply because it had been the battle-ground in some
great defeat of the Canaanitish kings, or whether
it is only introduced as an image of snowy white-
ness. And of these two explanations, the first
would be on the whole most probable; for Salmon
cannot have been a very high mountain, as the
highest mountains near Shechem are P2bal and
Gerizim, and of these Ebal, the highest of the
two, is only 1,028 feet higher than the city (see

color ; for these words have a signification of color in
Kal. The really analogous word is H^tOpn, " he
makes it rain," which bears the same relation to
"ItOD, "rain," which ;i'^btt?n bears to IlbC?,

" snow." Owing, probably, to Hebrew religious con-
ceptions of natural phenomena, no instance occurs of

""i^tiprr used as a neuter in the sense of " it rains ; "
though this would be grammatically admissible.

2792 SALMON

Ehal, vol. i. p. 640 ; and Kobinson's Gesenius, p.
895 a). If the poet had desired to use the image
of a snowy mountain, it would have been more
natural to select Hernion, which is visible from the
eastern brow of Gerizim, is about 10,000 feet high,
and is covered with perpetual snow. Still it is not
meant that this circumstance by itself would be
conclusive; for there may have been particular asso-
ciations in the mind of the poet, unknown to us,
which led him to prefer Salmon.

In despair of understanding the allusion to Sal-
mon, some suppose that Salmon, i. e. Tsalmon, is
not a proper name in this passage, but merely sig-
nifies "darkness;" and this interpretation, sup-
ported by the Targum, though opposed to the
Septuagint, has been adopted by Ewald, and in
the first statement in his Lexicon is admitted by
Fiirst. Shice iselem signifies "shade," this is a
bare etymological possibility. But no such word
as tsalmon occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew lan-
guage; while there are several other words for
darkness, in different degrees of meaning, such as
the ordinary word choshek, ophel, aphelah, and
^araphel.

Unless the passage is given up as corrupt, it
seems more in accordance with reason to admit
that theie was some allusion present to the poet's
mind, the key to which is now lost; and this ought
not to surprise any scholar who reflects how many
allusions there are in Greek poets — in Pindar, for
example, and in Aristophanes — which would be
wholly unintelligible to us now, were it not for the
notes of Greek scholiasts. To these notes there is
nothing exactly analogous in Hebrew literature;
and in the absence of some such assistance, it is
unavoidable that there should be several passages
in the 0. T. respecting the meaning of which we
must be content to remain ignorant. E. T.

SAL'MON the father of Boaz (Ruth iv. 20,
21; Matt. i. 4, 5; Luke iii. 32). [Salma.]

SALMO'NB {-ZaXudivr- Salmme). The
East point of the island of Crete. In the ac-
count of St. Paul's voyage to Rome this promon-
tory is mentioned in such a way (Acts xxvii. 7) as
to afford a curious illustration both of the naviga-
tion of the ancients and of the minute accuracy of
St. Luke's narrative. We gather from other cir-
cumstances of the voyage that the wind was blow-
ing from the N. W. {ivavTlovs, ver. 4; /8po8u-
TrAooCi/Tey, ver. 7). [See Myra.] We are then
told that the ship, on making Cnidus, could not,
by reason of the wind, hold on her course, which
was past the south point of Greece, W. by S.
She did, however, just fetch Cape Salmone, which
bears S. W. by S. from Cnidus. Now we may
. take it for granted that she could have made good
a course of less than seven points from the wind
[Ship] : and, starting from this assumption, we
are at once brought to the conclusion that the wind
must have been between N. N. W. and W. N. W.
Thus what Paley would have called an "unde-
signed coincidence" is elicited by a cross-examina-
tion of the narrative. This ingenious argument is
due to Mr. Smith of Jordanhill ( Voy. and Ship-
v)i'eclc of St. Paul, pp. 73, 74, 2d ed.), and from
him it is quoted by Conybeare and Howson {Life
and Epp. of St. Paul, ii. 393, 2d ed.). To these
books we must refer for fuller details. We may

* According to one account she was the daughter
Joseph by a former marriage (Epiphan. Hcer.

SALOME

just add that the ship had had the advantages of
a weather shore, smooth water, and a favoring cur-
rent, before reaching Cnidus, and that by running
down to (^ape Salmone the sailors obtained similar
advantages under the lee of Crete, as far as Fair
Havens, near Lasjsa. J. S. H.

* The northeast point of Crete is the present
Cape Sidero, and has generally been supposed (as
above) to be Luke's Salmone. Captain Spratt,
R. N., dissents from this opinion (Travels and Re-
searches in Crete, Lond. 1865). He admits that
the ancient writers, generally at least, applied the
name to that Cape, but thinks that Luke refers to
the promontory — jutting out toward the east
some miles to the south of Cape Sidero, and called
Plakn. His reasons for this conclusion in the
case of Luke are, first, " that Cape Sidero is, in
truth, not the headland or point his ship would
keep nearest to in coming from Cnidus; and, sec-
ondly, that this promontory south of Grandes Bay,
called Plaka by the natives, is indeed now by some
Levantine navigators called Cape Salmone, to dis-
tinguish it from Cape Sidero." Purdy {New
Sailing Directions, etc., p. 69, Lond. 1834) writes
the name Salomon, but must refer, of course, to
the same place. H.

SAXOM {•^.aXdiix: Salom). The Greek form
1. of Shallum, the father of Hilkiah (Bar. i. 7).
[Shallum.] 2. {Saloiims) of Salii the father of
Zimri (1 Mace. ii. 26). [Salu.J

SALO'ME {:S.aX(lofxv [Heb. peacefd]: Sa-
lome). 1. The wife of Zebedee, as appears from
comparing Matt, xxvii. 56 with Mark xv. 40. It is
further the opinion of many modern critics that she
was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, to whom
reference is made in John xix. 25. The words ad-
mit, however, of another and hitherto generally
received explanation, according to which they refer
to the "Mary the wife of Cleophas " immediately
afterwards mentioned. In behalf of the former
view, it may be urged that it gets rid of the diffi-
culty arising out of two sisters having the sanie
name — that it harmonizes John's narrative with
those of Matthew and Mark — that this circuitous
manner of describintr his own mother is in char-
acter with St. John's manner of describing him-
self — that the absence of any connecting link
between the second and third designations may be
accounted for on the ground that the four are
arranged in two distinct couplets — and, lastly,
that the Peshito, the Persian, and the JEthiopic
versions mark the distinction between the second
and third by interpolating a conjunction. On the
other hand, it may be urged that the difficulty
arising out of the name may be disposed of by
assuming a double marriage on the part of the
father — that there is no necessity to harmonize
John with Matthew and Mark, for that the time
and the place in which the groups are noticed dif-
fer materially — that the language addressed to
John, "Behold thy mother!" favors the idea of
the absence rather than of the presence of his nat-
ural mother — and that the varying traditions""
current in the early Church as to Salome's parents,
worthless as they are in themselves, yet bear a
negative testimony against the idea of her being
related to the mother of Jesus. Altogether we
can hardly regard the point as settled, though the

Ixxviii. 8) : according to another, the wife of Joseph
(Niceph. H. E. ii. 3).

SALT

weight of modem criticism is decidedly in favor of
the former view (see Wieseler, Stud. u. Krit. 1840,
p. 648). The only events recorded of Salome are
that she preferred a request on behalf of her two
sons for seats of honor in the kingdom of heaven
(Matt. XX. 20), that she attended at the crucifixion
of Jesus (Mark xv. 40), and that she visited his
sepulchre (Mark xvi. 1). She is mentioned by
name only on the two latter occasions.

2. The daughter of Herodias by her first hus-
band, Herod Philip (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5, § 4).
She is the " daughter of Herodias" noticed in Matt,
xiv. 6 as dancing before Herod Antipas, and as
procuring at her mother's instigation the death of
John the Baptist. She married in the first place
Philip the tetrarch of Trachonitis, her paternal
uncle, and secondly Aristobulus, the king of Chal-
cis. W. L. B.

SALT (nb^: 'dKs'- snl). Indispensable as

salt is to ourselves, it was even more so to the
Hebrews, being to them not only an appetizing
condiment in the food both of man (Job vi. 6) and
beast (Is. xxx. 24, see margin), and a most valua-
ble antidote to the eflfects of the heat of the cli-
mate on animal food, but also entering largely into
their religious services as an accompaniment to the
various ofterings presented on the altar (Lev. ii.
13). They possessed an inexhaustible and ready
supply of it on the southern shores of the Dead
Sea. Here may have been situated the Valley of
Salt (2 Sam. viii. 13), in proximity to the moun-
tain of fossil salt which Robinson {Researches, ii.
108) describes as five miles in length, and as the
chief source of the salt in the sea itself. Here
were the saltpits (Zeph. ii. 9), probably formed m
the marshes at the southern end of the lake, which
are completely coated with salt, deposited period-
ically by the rising of the waters; and here also
were the successive pillars of salt which tradition
has from time to time identified with Lot's wife
(Wisd. X. 7; Joseph. Ant. i. 11, § 4). [Sea, the
Salt.] Salt might also .be procured from the
Mediterranean Sea, and from this source the Phoe-
nicians would naturally obtain the supply neces-
sary for salting fish (Xeh. xiii. 16) and for other
purposes. The Jews appear to have distinguished
between rock-salt and that which was gained by
evaporation, as the Talmudists particularize one
species (probably the latter) as the "salt of
Sodom " (Carpzov, Appar. p. 718). The notion
that this expression means bitumen rests on no
foundation. The saltpits formed an important
source of revenue to the rulers of the country
(Joseph. Ant. xiii. 4, § 9), and Antiochus conferred
a valuable boon on Jerusalem by presenting the
city with 375 bushels of salt for the Temple ser-
vice {Ant. xii. 3, § 3). In addition to the uses of
salt already specified, the inferior sorts were ap-
plied as a manure to the soil, or to hasten the
decomposition of dung (Matt. v. 13; Luke xiv.
35). Too large an admixture, however, was held
to produce sterility, as exemplified on the shores
of the Dead Sea (Deut. xxix. 23; Zeph. ii. 9):
hence a " salt " land was synonymous with barren-
ness (Job xxxix. 6, see margin ; Jer. xvii. 6 ; conip.
Joseph. B. J. iv. 8, § 2, a\fivpa>Sr}s Ka\ &yovos);
and hence also arose the custom of sowing with
salt the foundations of a destroyed city (Judg. ix.
45), as a token of its irretrievable ruin. It was
the belief of the Jews that salt would, by exposure
to the air, lose its virtue {fioapavQfj, Matt. v. 13)
176

SALT, CITV of

2793

and become saltless {&vaXov^ Mark ix. oO). The
same fact is implied in the expressions of PUny,
snl iners (xxxi. 39), sal tnbescere (xxxi. 44); and
Maundrell {Early Travels, p. 512, Bohn) asserts
that he found the surface of a salt rock in this
condition. The associations connected with salt
in eastern countries are important. As one of
the most essential articles of diet, it symbolized
hospitality; as an antiseptic, durability, fidelity,
and purity. Hence the expression, »' covenant of
salt" (Lev. iL 13; Num. xviii. 19; 2 Chr. xiii.
5), as betokening an indissoluble alliance between
friends; and again the expression, "salted with
the salt of the palace" (Ezr. iv. 14), not neces-
sarily meaning that they had " maintenance from
the palace," as the A. V. has it, but that they
were bound by sacred obligations of fidelity to the
king. So in the present day, " to eat bread and
salt together" is an expression for a league of
mutual amity (Russell, Aleppo, i. 232); and, on
the other hand, the Persian term for traitor is
nemekharam, "faithless to salt" (Gesen. Thes.
p. 790). It was probably with a view to keep this
idea prominently before the minds of the Jews
that the use of salt was enjoined on the Israelites
in their offerings to God ; for in the first instance
it was specifically ordered for the meat-offering
(Lev. ii. 13), which consisted mainly of flour, and
therefore was not liable to corruption. The ex-
tension of its use to burnt sacrifices was a later
addition (Ez. xliii. 24; Joseph. Ant. iii. 9, § 1),
in the spirit of the general injunction at the close
of Lev. ii. 13. Similarly the heathens accom-
panied their sacrifices with salted barley-meal, the
Greeks with their ovKoxinai (Hom. 11. i, 449),
the Romans with their mala salsa (Hor. Sat. ii. 3,
200) or their salsce fruges (Virg. ^n. ii. 133).
It may of course be assumed that in all of these
cases salt was added as a condiment; but the
strictness with which the rule was adhered to —
no sacrifice being offered without salt (Plin. xxxi.
41), and still more the probable, though perhaps
doubtful, admixture of it in incense (Ex. xxx. 35,
where the word rendered " tempered together " is
by some understood as "salted") — leads to the
conclusion that there was a symbolical force at-
tached to its use. Our Lord refers to the sacrifi-
cial use of salt in Mark ix. 49, 50, though some
of the other associations may also be implied.
The purifying property of salt, as opposed to cor-
ruption, led to its selection as the outward sign in
Elisha's miracle (2 K. ii. 20, 21), and is also
developed in the N. T. (Matt. v. 13; Col. iv. 6).
The custom of rubbing infants with salt (Ez. xvi.
4) originated in sanitary considerations, but re-
ceived also a symbolical meaning. W. L. B.

SALT, CITY OF (nb^n-n"^37 : at irSKeis

^aScov; Alex, ai ttoAjs a\av: civitas salts). The
fifth of the six cities of Judah which fey in the
"wilderness" (Josh. xv. 62). Its proximity to
En-gedi, and the name itself seem to point to its
being situated close to or at any rate in the neigh-
borhood of the Salt Sea. Dr. Robinson {Bibli Res.
ii. 109) expresses his belief that it lay somewhere
near the plain at the south end of that lake, which
he would identify with the Valley of Salt. This,
though possibly supported by the reading of the
Vatican LXX., " the cities of Sodom,." is at present
a mere conjecture, since no trace of the name or the
city has yet been discovered in that position. On
the other hand, Mr. Van de Velde- {Syr. f Fill. ii.

2794

SALT SEA

99; Afemoir, p. Ill, and 3fap) mentions a Nah'
Maleh which he passed in his route from Wady
er-Rmail to Sebbeh, the name of which (though the
orthography is not certain) may be found to con-
tain a trace of the Hebrew. It is one of four
ravines which unite to form the Wady eUBedun.
Another of the four, W. Wmreh {Syi\ (f P. ii. 99;
Memoir, p. Ill, Map), recalls the name of Gomor-
rah, to the Hebrew of which it is very similar. G.
* SALT SEA. [Sea, the Salt.]
SALT, VALLEY OF (nbp S**?, but
twice with the article, H vTSH 2 : Te^eXc/x,
Te/xeXcS, Koi\ds, and <pdpay^, twv aKuV, Alex.
r-nfiaAa, rai/xeKa' Vallis Salinarum). A certain
valley, or perhaps more accurately a "ravine," — the
Hebrew word 6'e appearing to bear that significa-
tion, — in which occurred two memorable victories
of the Israelite arms.

1. That of David over the Edomites (2 Sam.
viii. 13; 1 Chr. xviii. 12). It appears to have im-
mediately followed his Syrian campaign, and was
itself one of the incidents of the great Edomite war
of extermination. « The battle in the Valley of
Salt appears to have been conducted by Abishai
(1 Chr. xviii. 12), but David and Joab were both
present in person at the battle and in the pursuit
and campaign which followed ; and Joab was left
behind for six months to consummate the doom
of the conquered country (1 K. xi. 15, 16 ; Ps. Ix.
title). The number of Edomites slain in the bat-
tle is uncertain: the narratives of Samuel and
Chronicles both give it at 18,000, but this figure is
lowered in the title of Ps. Ix. to 12,000.

2. That of Amaziah (2 K. xiv. 7; 2 Chr. xxv.
11), who is related to have slain ten thousand
Edomites in this valley, and then to have pro-
ceeded, with 10,000 prisoners, to the stronghold of
the nation at has-Sela, the Cliff, i. e. Petra, and,
after taking it, to have massacred them by hurling
them down the precipice which gave its ancient
name to the city.

Neither of these notices affords any clew to the
situation of the Valley of Salt, nor does the cursory
mention of the name ("Gemela" and "Mela")
in the Onomasticon. By Josephus it is not named
on either occasion. Seetzen (Reisen, ii. 356) was
probably the first to suggest that it was the broad
open plain which lies at the lower end of the Dead
Sea, and intervenes between the lake itself and the
range of heights which crosses the valley at six or
eight miles to the south. The same view is taken
(more decisively ) by Dr. Robinson {Bibl. Res. ii. 109 ).
The plain is in fact the termination of the Ghor or
valley through which the Jordan flows from the
Lake of Tiberias to the Dead Sea. Its N. W. cor-
ner is occupied by the Khashm Usdum, a mountain
of rock salt, between which and the lake is an ex-
tensive salt marsh, while salt streams and brackish

a The Received Text of 2 Sam. viii. 13 omits the
mention of Edomites ; but from a comparison of the
parallel passages in 1 Chr. and in the title of Ps. Ix.
there is good ground for believing that the verse origi-
nally stood thus : " And David made himself a name
[when he returned from smiting the Aramites] [and
when he returned he smote the Edomites] in the Val-
ley of Salt — eighteen thousand;" the two clauses
within bnickets having been omitted by the Greek and
Hebrew scribes respectively, owing to the very close
resemblance of the words with which each clause

finishes — C^aHM and D"^D1S. This is the con-

SALUM

springs pervade, more or less, the entire western
half of the plain. Without presuming to contra-
dict this suggestion, which yet can hardly be
affirmed with safety in the very imperfect condition
of our knowledge of the inaccessible regions S. and
S. E. of the Dead Sea, it may be well to call atten-
tion to some considerations which seem to stand in
the way of the implicit reception which most writ-
ers have given it since the publication of Dr. R-'s
Researches.

(a.) The word Ge (W^!!), employed for the place
in question, is not, to the writer's knowledge, else-
where applied to a broad valley or sunk plain of
the nature of the lower Ghor. Such tracts are
denoted in the Scripture by the words Emek or
Bika'ah, while Ge appears to be reserved for clefts
or ravines of a deeper and narrower character.
[Valley.]

(6.) A pricyri, one would expect the tract in
question to be called in Scripture by the peculiar
name uniformly applied to the more northern parts
of the same valley — ha-Ardbah — in the same
manner that the Arabs now call it el- Ghor — Ghor
being their equivalent for the Hebrew Ardbah.

(c.) The name " Salt," though at first sight
conclusive, becomes less so on reflection. It does
not follow, because the Hebrew word melach signi-
fies salt, that therefore the valley was salt. A case
exactly parallel exists at el-Milh, the representative
of the ancient Moladah, some sixteen miles south
of Hebron. Like melach, milh signifies salt; but
there is no reason to believe that there is any salt
present there, and Dr. Robinson {Bibl. Res. ii. 201,
note) himself justly adduces it as " an instance of
the usual tendency of popular pronunciation to re-
duce foreign proper names to a significant form."
Just as elr-Milh is the Arabic representative of the
Hebrew Moladah, so possibly was ge-mdach the
Hebrew representative of some archaic Edomite
name.

{d. ) What little can be inferred from the narra-
tive as to the situation of the Ge-Melach is in
favor of its being nearer to Petra. Assuming
Selah to be Petra (the chain of evidence for which
is tolerably connected), it seems difficult to believe
that a large body of prisoners should have been
dragged for upwards of fifty miles through the
heart of a hostile and most difficult country,
merely for massacre. G.

SA'LU (S^bp [weighed:]: ^aXfxwV, Alex.
[Comp. Aid.] 2oAc6: Salu). The father of Zimri
the prince of the Simeonites, who was slain by
Phinehas (Num. xxv. 14). Called also Salom.

SA'LUM {S.aKoifi; [Vat. corrupt:] Esmen-
nus). 1. Shallum, the head of a family of gate-
keepers (A. V. " porters ") of the Temple (1 Esdr.
V. 28; comp. Ezr. ii. 42).

2. (2oA7j/tos; [Aid. 5aAou;Uos:] Sohmie.'\

jecture of Thenius (Exeg. Handbuch), and is adopted
by Bunsen (Bibelwerk, note to the passage). Ewald
has shown (GescA. iii. 201, 202) that the whole

is very much disordered. UW W^tl should prob-
ably be rendered " and set up a mouument," instead
of " and gat a name " Gesen. ( Thes. p. 1431 b) ; Michaelia
{Suppl. No. 2501, and note to BibeL fur Vngel.); De
Wette (Bibel); LXX. Coisl., koL eOrfKev €<rT7}\w|ten7V ;
Jerome {QucBSt. Hebr.), erexit fornicem triumphalem.
Rashi interprets it "reputation," and makes the
reputation to have arisen from David's good act
burying the dead even of his enemies.

SALUTATION

Shallum, the father of Hilkiah and ancestor of
Ezra (1 Esdr. viii. 1; Conip. Ezr. vii. 2). Called
also Sadamias and Sadom.

SALUTATION". Salutations may be classed
under the two heads of conversational and epistolary.
The salutation at meeting consisted in early times
of various expressions of blessing, such as " God be
gracious unto thee" (Gen. xliii. 29); "Blessed be
thou of the Lord " (Ruth iii. 10; 1 Sam. xv. 13);
"The Lord be with you," "The Lord bless thee"
(Ruth ii. 4); "The blessing of the Lord be upon
you; we bless you in the name of the Lord" (Ps.
cxxix. 8). Hence the term "bless" received the
secondary sense of " salute," and is occasionally so
rendered in the A. V. (1 Sam. xiii. 10, xxv. 14;
2 K. iv. 29, X. 15), though not so frequently as it
might have been (e. g. Gen. xxvii. 23, xlvii. 7, 10 ;
1 K. viii. 66). The blessing was sometimes ac-
companied with inquiries as to the health either of
the person addressed or his relations. The Hebrew
term used in these instances {shdldmo) has no
special reference to "peace," as stated in the mar-
ginal translation, but to general well-being, and
strictly answers to our " welfare," as given in the
text (Gen. xhii. 27; Ex. xviii. 7). It is used not
only in the case of salutation (in which sense it is
frequently rendered " to salute," e. g. Judg. xviii.
15; 1 Sam. x. 4; 2 K. x. 13); but also in other
cases where it is designed to soothe or to encourage
a person (Gen. xliii. 23; Judg. vi. 23, xix. 20;
1 Chr. xii. 18; Dan. x. 19; compare 1 Sam. xx.
21, where it is opposed to "hurt;" 2 Sam. xviii.
28, "all is well;" and 2 Sam. xi. 7, where it is
applied to the progress of the war). The saluta-
tion at parting consisted originally of a simple bless-
ing (Gen. xxiv. 60, xxviii. 1, xlvii. 10; Josh. xxii.
6), but in later times the term shaloni was intro-
duced here also in the form " Go in peace," or
rather " Farewell" (1 Sam. i. 17, xx. 42; 2 Sam.
XV. 9). This^ was current at the time of our
Saviour's ministry (Mark v. 34; Luke vii. 50;
Acts xvi. 36), and is adopted by Him in his parting
address to his disciples (John xiv. 27). It had
even passed into a salutation on meeting, in such
forms as "Peace be to this house" (Luke x. 5),
"Peace be unto you" (Luke xxiv. 36; John xx.
19). The more common salutation, however, at
this period was borrowed from the Greeks, their
word xa'V^ *" ^®'"g "^^ ^otJi at meeting (Matt,
xxvi. 49, xxviii. 9; Luke i. 28), and probably also
at departure. In modern times the ordinary mode
of address current in the East resembles the He-
brew: Es-seUim aleykum, "Peace be on you"
(Lane's Mod. Eg. ii. 7), and the term "salam"
has been introduced into our own language to de-
scribe the Oriental salutation.

The forms of greeting that we have noticed
were freely exchanged among persons of different
ranks on the occasion of a casual meeting, and this
even when they were strangers. 'I'hus Boaz ex-
changed greeting with his reapers (Ruth ii. 4), the
traveller on the road saluted the worker in the
field (Ps. cxxix. 8), and members of the same fam-
ily interchanged greetings on rising in the morn-
ing (Prov. xxvii. 14). The only restriction ap-
pears to have been in regard to religion, the Jew
of old, as the Mohammedan of the present day.

SAMAEL

2795

b The Greek expression is evidently borrowed from
the Hebrew, the preposition els not betokening

paying the compliment only to those whom he con-
sidered " brethren," i. e. members of the same re-
ligious community (Matt. v. 47; Lane, ii. 8; Nie-
buhr, Dtscript. p. 43). Even the Apostle St.
John forbids an interchange" of greeting where it
implied a wish for the success of a bad cause
(2 John 11). In modern times the Orientals are
famed for the elaborate formality of their greetings,
which occupy a very considerable time; the fn-
stances given in the Bible do not bear such a char-
acter, and therefore the prohibition addressed to
persons engaged in urgent business. " Salute no
man by the way " (2 K. iv. 29; Luke x. 4), may
best be referred to the delay likely to ensue from
subsequent conversation. Among the Persians the
monarch was never approached without the salu-
tation " O king! live for ever" (Dan. ii. 4, &c.).
There is no evidence that this ever became cur-
rent among the Jews: the expression in 1 K. i. 31
was elicited by the previous allusion on the part of
David to his own decease. In lieu of it we meet
with the Greek xa'pe? "hail! " (Matt, xxvii. 29).
The act of salutation was accompanied with a va-
riety of gestures expressive of different degrees of
humiliation, and sometimes with a kiss. [Adora-
tion; Kiss.] These acts involved the necessity
of dismounting in case a person were riding or
driving (Gen. xxiv. 64; 1 Sam. xxv. 23; 2 K. v.
21). The same custom still prevails in the East
(Niebuhr's DescrijA. p. 39).

The epistolary salutations in the period subse-
quent to the 0. T. were framed on the model of
the Latin style: the addition of the term " peace "
may, however, be regarded as a vestige of the old
Hebrew form (2 Mace. i. 1). The writer placed
his own name tirst, and then that of the person
whom he saluted; it was only in special cases that
this order was reversed (2 M:icc. i. 1, ix. 19:
1 Esdr. vi. 7). A combination of the first and
third persons in the terms of the salutation was not
unfrequent (Gal. i. 1, 2; Philem. 1; 2 Pet. i. 1).
The term used (either expressed or understood) in
the introductory salutation was the Greek xotpeii/
in an elliptical construction (1 Mace. x. 18; 2 Mace,
ix. 19 ; 1 F^dr. viii. 9 ; Acts xxiii. 26) ; this, however,
was more frequently omitted, and the only Apos-
tolic passages in which it occurs are Acts xv. 23
and James i. 1, a coincidence which renders it
probable that St. James composed the letter in
the former passage. A form of prayer for spiritual
mercies was also used, consisting generally of the
terms " grace and peace," but in the three Pastoral
Epistles and in 2 John "grace, mercy, and peace,"
and in Jude " mercy, peace, and love." The con-
cluding salutation consisted occasionally of a trans-
lation of the Latin vnlete (Acts xv. 29, xxiii. 30),
but more generally of the term oo-Tra^o/xoi, " 1
salute," or the cognate substantive, accompanied by
a prayer for peace or grace. St. Paul, who availed
himself of an amanuensis (Rom. xvi. 22), added
the salutation with his own hand (1 Cor. xvi.
21; Col. iv. 18; 2 Thes. iii. 17). The omis-
sion of the introductory salutation in the Epistle
to the Hebrews is very noticeable.

W. L. B.

SAM'AEL (^a\a/j.i-{j\; [Sin. SafxafiiriX; Aid.
^afia-f}\:] Salathiel), a variation for (margin)

the state into which, but answering to the Hebrew
/, in which the person departs.

2796 SAMAIAS

Salaniiel [Shklumiel] in Jud. viii. 1 (com p. Num.
i. 6). The form in A. V. is given by Aldus.

B. F. W.

SAMAI'AS [3 syl.] (2a^a/os: Semeins). 1.
Shemaiah the Levite in the reign of Josiah (1
Esdr. i. 9; comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 9).

2. Shemaiah of the sons of Adonikam (1 Esdr.
viii. 39; comp. Ezr. viii. 13).

3. (Se^f'*' i^^^- 26;ueos; Sin. ^e/xfKias', Aid.
^a/jLalas ;] Alex. Sefieias'- om. in Vulg.) The
"great Samaias," father of Ananias and Jonathas
(Tob. V. 13).

SAMA'RIA (l'l"ipt27, l e. Shomeron [see

below] ; Chald. l^.'T"?^ • 'Za/j.dpeia, Se^uTjpcij/,
2o^(^pa>i/;" [Alex, very often :S,afiapia, and so Sin.
Or FA. in Is., Jer., Obad.; Sin. -peia in Jud. i. 9,
iv. 4;] Joseph, ^a/idpeia, but Ant. viii. 12, § 5,
Seyuapec^j': Samaria). 1. A city of Palestine,

The word /SAomero?i means, etymologically, "per-
taining to a watch," or "a watch-mountain; " and
we should almost be inclined to think that the
peculiarity of the situation of Samaria gave occa-
sion to its name. In the territory originally be-
longing to the tribe of Joseph, about six miles to
the northwest of Shechem, there is a wide basin-
shaped valley, encircled with high hills, almost on
the edge of the great plain which borders upon the
Mediterranean. In the centre of this basin, which
is on a lower level than the valley of Shechem,
rises a less elevated oblong hill, with steep yet
accessible sides, and a long flat top. This hill was
chosen by Omri, as the site of the capital of the
kingdom of Israel. The first capital after the seces-
sion of the ten tribes had been Shechem itself,
whither all Israel had come to make Eehoboam
king. On the separation being fully accomplished,
Jeroboam rebuilt that city (1 K. xii. 25), which
had been razed to the ground by Abimelech (Judg.
ix. 45). But he soon moved to Tirzah, a place, as
Dr. Stanley observes, of great and proverbial beauty
(Cant. vi. 4); which continued to be the royal resi-
dence until Zimri burnt the palace and perished
in its ruins (1 K. xiv. 17, xv. 21, 33, xvi. 6-18).
Omri, who prevailed in the contest for the kingdom
that ensued, after " reigning six years " there,

"bought the hill of Samaria ('J^"ipt27 '^TTH: rh

,6pos rh 'Ze/xrjpdi') of Shemer O^^': Se^uTjp,
Joseph. Se/iopoy) for two talents of silver, and built
on the hill, and called the name of the city which
he built, after the name of the owner of the hill,
Samaria" (1 K. xvi. 23, 24). [Omki, Amer. ed.]
This statement of course dispenses with the ety-
mology above alluded to; but the central position
of the hill, as Herod sagaciously observed long
afterwards, made it admirably adapted for a place
of observation, and a fortress to awe the neighbor-
ing country. And the singular beauty of the spot,
upon which, to this hour, travellers dwell with
admiration, may have struck Omri, as it afterwards
struck the tasteful Idumean {B. J. i. 21, § 2; Ant.
XV. 8, § 5).

From the date of Omri's purchase, b. c. 925,
Samaria retained its dignity as the capital of the

SAMARIA

ten tribes. Ahab built a temple to Baal there
(1 K. xvi. 32, 33); and from this circumstance a
portion of the city, possibly fortified by a separate
wall, was called ''the city of the house of Baal"
(2 K. X. 25). Samaria must have been a place
of great strength. It was twice besieged by the
Syrians, in b. c. 901 (1 K. xx. 1 ), and hi b. c. 892
(2 K. vi. 24-vii. 20); but on both occasions the
siege was ineffectual. On the latter, indeed, it
was relieved miraculously, but not until the inhab-
itants had suffered almost incredible horrors from
famine during their protracted resistance. The
possessor of Samaria was considered to be de facto
king of Israel (2 K. xv. 13, 14); and woes de-
nounced against the nation were directed against
it by name (Is. vii. 9, &c.). In b. c. 721, Sama-
ria was taken, after a siege of three years, by Shal-
maneser, king of Assyria (2 K. xviii. 9, 10), and
the kingdom of the ten tribes was put an end to.
[See below. No. 3.] Some years afterwards the
district of which Samaria was the centre was re-
peopled by Esarhaddon ; but we do not hear espe-
cially of the city until the days of Alexander the
Great. That conqueror took the city, which seems
to have somewhat recovered itself (Euseb. Chron.
ad ann. Abr. 1684), killed a large portion of the
inhabitants, and suffered the remainder to settle
at Shechem. [Shechem; Sychak.] He replaced
them by a colony of Syro-Macedonians, and gave
the adjacent territory (Sa/iapetTts x<^pa) to the
Jews to inhabit (Joseph, c. Ap. ii. 4). These
Syro-Macedonians occupied the city until the time
of John Hyrcanus. It was then a place of con-
siderable importance, for Josephus describes it {Ant.
xiii. 10, § 2) as a very strong city (ttoXis oxvpca-
rarrj). John Hyrcanus took it after a year's siege,
and did his best to demolish it entirely. He inter-
sected the hill on which it lay with trenches : into
these he conducted the natural brooks, and thus
undermined its foundations. "In fact," says the
Jewish historian, " he took away all evidence of
the very existence of the city." This story at first
sight seems rather exaggerated, and inconsistent ;
with the hilly site of Samaria. It may have -
referred only to the suburbs lying at its foot.
"But," says Prideaux {Conn. b. c. 109, note),
" Benjamin of Tudela, who was in the place, tells
us in his Itinerary ^ that there were upon the top
of this hill many fountains of water, and from
these water enough may have been derived to fill
these trenches." It should also be recollected that
the hill of Samaria was lower than the hills in its
neighborhood. This may account for the existence
of these springs. Josephus describes the extrem-
ities to which the inhabitants were reduced during
this siege, much in the same way that the author
of the Book of Kings does during that of Ben-
hadad (comp. A7ii. xiii. 10, § 2, with 2 K. vi. 25).
John Hyrcanus' reasons for attacking Samaria were
the injuries which its inhabitants had done to the
people of Marissa, colonists and allies of the Jews.
This confirms what was said above, of the cession
of the Samaritan neighborhood to the Jews by
Alexander the Great.

After this disaster (which occurred in B. c. 109),
the Jews inhabited what remained of the city; at

a The prevailing LXX. form in the 0. T. is 2o/xa-
peia, with the following remarkable exceptions : 1 K.
xvi. 24, Se/xepcoi' . . . l.€fj.rjpu)v (Mai, SafXT/pwi/) ;
[Alex. Efxepwv . . , So/Ltijpwf ;] Ezr. iv. 10, 2o/x6-

pwj/ (Mai, Sw/awpwv); Neh. iv. 2; Is. vii. 9, 2o/u,6-
pov.

b No such passage, however, now exists in Benja-
min of Tudela. See the editions of Asher and of
Bohn.

ma 01 HH

SAMARIA

least we find it in their possession in the time of
Alexander Jannaeus {Ant. xiii. 15, § 4), and until
Ponipey gave it back to the descendants of its
original inhabitants (toTs o'lK-firopcriv)' These
oiK-f]ropes may jjossibly have been the Syro-Mace-
donians, but it is more probable that they were
Samaritans proper, whose ancestors had been dis-
possessed by the colonists of Alexander the Great.
By directions of Gabinius, Samaria and other de-
molished cities were rel)uilt (Ant. xiv. 5, § 3). But
its more effectual rebuilding was undertaken by
Herod the Great, to whom it had been granted by
Augustus, on the death of Antony and Cleopatra
(AjiL xiii. 10, § 3, xv. 8, § 5; B. J. i. 20, § 3).
He called it Sebaste, ^f^aa-rr] = Aufftistn, after
the name of his patron (Ant. xv. 7, § 7). Josephus
gives an elaborate description of Herod's improve-
ments. The wall surrounding it was 20 stadia in
length. In the middle of it was a close, of a
stadium and a half square, containing a mag-

SAMARIA

2797

nificent temple, dedicated to the Caesar. It was
colonized by 6,000 veterans and others, for whose
support a most beautiful and rich district surround-
ing the city was appropriated. Herod's motives
in these arrangements were probably, first, the
occupation of a commanding position, and then
the desire of distinguishing himself for taste by
the embellishment of a spot already so adorned
by nature {Ant. xv. 8, § 5; B. J. i. 20, § 3; 21,
§2).

How long Samaria maintained its splendor after
Herod's improvements we are not informed. In
the N. T. the city itself does not appear to be
mentioned, but rather a portion of ike district to
which, even in older times, it had extended its
name. Our Version, indeed, of Acts viii. 5 says
that Philip the deacon " went down to the city of
Samaria; " but the Greek of the passage is simply
els Tr6Kiv TTjs 'S.ajxapeias. And we may fairly
argue, both from the absence of the definite article,

Sebusttyeh, the ancient Samabia, firom the E. N. E.

Behind the city are the mountains of Ephraim, verging on the Plain of Sharon. The Mediterranean Sea is
in the furthest distance.rt The original sketch from which this view is taken was made by William Tipping,
Esq., in 1842, and is engraved by his kind permission.

and from the probability that, had the city Samaria
been intended, the term employed would have been
Stbaste, that some one city of the district, the
name of which is not si)ecified, was in the mind
of the writer. In verse 9 of the same chapter
•'the people of Samaria" represents rh ^6vos rrjs
2a/nopetas; and the phrase in verse 25, "many
villages of the Samaritans,'' shows that the opera-
tions of evangelizing were not confined to the city
of Samaria itself, if they were ever carried on
there. Comp. Matt. x. 5, " Into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not;" and John iv. 4, 5,
where, after it has been said, "And He must needs
go through Samaria," obviously the district, it is
subjoined, " Then cometh He to a city of Samaria
called Sychar." Henceforth its history is very un-
connected. Septimius Severus planted a Roman
colony there in the beginning of the third century

a * The sea is visible with the naked eye from the
top of the hill. H.

(Ulpian, Leg. I. de Censibus, quoted by Dr. Rob-
inson). Various specimens of coins struck on the
spot have been preserved, extending from Nero to
Geta, the brother of Caracalla (Vaillant, in Nu-
mism. Impel'. ^ and Noris, quoted by Reland). But,
though the seat of a. Roman colony, it could not
have been a place of much political importance.
We find in the Codex of Theodosius, that by a. d.
409 the Holy Land had been divided into Pal«stina
Prima, Secunda, and Tertia. Pahnestina Prima
included the country of the Philistines, Samaria
(the district), and the northern part of Judsea;
but its capital was not Sebaste, but Csesarea. In
an ecclesiastical point of view it stood rather higher.
It was an episcopal see probably as early as the
third century. At any rate its bishop was present
amongst those of Palestine at the Council of Nicaea,
A. D. 325, and subscribed its acts as " Maximus
(al. Marinus) Sebastenus." The names of some
of his successors have been preserved — the latest
of them mentioned is Pelagius, who attended the

2798

SAMARIA

Synod at Jerusalem, a. d. 536. The title of the
see occurs in the earlier Greek Notiiioe, and in
the later Latin ones (Reland, Pal. pp. 214-229).
Sebaste fell into the hands of the Mohammedans
during the siege of Jerusalem. In the course of
the Crusades a Latin bishopric was established
there, the title of which was recognized by the
Roman Church until the fourteenth century. At
this day the city of Omri and of Herod is rep-
resented by a small village retaining few vestiges
of the past except its name, Sebustieh, an Arabic
corruption of Sebaste. Some architectural remains
it has, partly of Christian construction or adapta-
tion, as the ruined church of St. John the Baptist,
partly, perhaps, traces of Idumsean magnificence.
" A long avenue of broken pillars (says Dr. Stan-
ley), apparently the main street of Herod's city,
here, as at PalmjTa and Damascus, adorned by a
colonnade on each side, still lines the topmost ter-
race of the hill." But the fragmentary aspect of
the whole place exhibits a present fulfillment of the
prophecy of Micah (i. 6), though it may have been
fiilfilled more than once previously by the ravages
of Shalmaneser or of John Hyrcanus. " I will
make Samaria as an heap of the field, and as
plantings of a vineyard : and I will pour down the
stones thereof into the valley, and I will discover
the foundations thereof" (Mic. i. 6; comp. Hos.
xiii. 16).

St. Jerome, whose acquaintance with Palestine
imparts a sort of probability to the tradition which
prevailed so strongly in later days, asserts that
Sebaste, which he invariably identifies with Samaria,
was the place in which St. John the Baptist was
imprisoned and suffered death. He also makes it
the burial-place of the prophets Elisha and Obadiah
(see various passages cited by Eeland, pp. 980, 981).
Epiphanius is at great pains, in his work Adv.
Hcereses (lib. i.), in which he treats of the heresies
of the Samaritans with singular minuteness, to
account for the origin of their name. He inter-
prets it as D'^'^^tr, <i)v\aK€s, or "keepers." The
hill on which the city was built was, he says,
designated Somer or Someron (ScojUTjp, ^wfiopwv),
from a certain Somoron the son of Somer, whom
he considers to have been of the stock of the an-
cient Perizzites or Girgashites, themselves descend-
ants of Canaan and Ham. But he adds, the
inhabitants may have been called Samaritans from
their guarding the land, or (coming down much
later in their history) from their guarding the Law,
as distinguished from the later writings of the
Jewish Canon, which they refused to allow. [See
Samakitans.]

For modern descriptions of the condition of Sa-
maria and its neighborhood, see Dr. Robinson's
Biblical Researches, ii. 127-133; Reland's Palces-
Hna, pp. 344, 979-982; Kaumer's Falastinn, pp.
144-148, notes; Van de Velde's Syria and Pales-
tine, i. 363-388, and ii. 295, 296, Map, and Me-
moir ; Dr. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp.
242-246 ; and a short article by Mr. G. Williams
in the Diet, of Geog. Dr. Kitto, in his Physical
Hisfoi-y of Palestine, pp. cxvii., cxviii., has an in-
teresting reference to and extract from Sandys,
illustrative of its topography and general aspect at
the commencement of the seventeenth century.

2. The Samaria named in the present text of
1 Mace. V. 66 {t^p 'S.anapeiav', [Sin. Alex. -piav:'\
Snmariam) is evidently an error. At any rate
the well-known Samaria of the Old and New Tes-

SAMARIA

taments cannot be intended, for it is obvious that
Judas, in passing from Hebron to the land of the
Philistines (Azotus), could'not make so immense a
detour. The true correction is doubtless supplied
by Josephus (Ant. xii. 8, § 6), who has Marissa
(i. e. Maresha), a place which lay in the road
from Hebron to the Philistine Plain. One of the
ancient Latin Versions exhibits the same reading ;
which is accepted by Ewald (Gesch. iv. 361) and a
host of conmientators (see Grimm, Kurzg. Exeg.
Hamlb., on the passage). Drusius proposed Sha-
araim ; but this is hardly so feasible as Maresha,
and has no external support.

3. Sama'ria ([2ojuap€ia; Alex, very often 2o-
fiapia, and so Sin. in 1 Mace, and N. T., followed
by Tisch. in his 8th ed. of the N. T, ; — " the
country of Samaria," 1 Mace. x. 30, xi. 28, 34, ^
2a)uaperTts, Alex, -pins, and so Siji. except 1
Mace. xi. 28; — (woman) "of Samaria," John iv.
9, So/uopetTis, but Tisch. in his 8th ed. of the N.
T., SayuapjTis; — ] Joseph. x^P"'- 2a;uap€wi/; Ptol.
Sa^apty, Saytiapem: Samaria).

Samar'itans (D'^pnptt? : So/xopftTot; [Alex.

Sa^opiTOi, and so Sin. and Tisch. (8th ed.) in
the N. T. ;] Joseph. SojUopeTs: {Samaritce]).

There are few questions in Biblical philology
upon which, in recent times, scholars have come to
such opposite conclusions as the extent of the terri-
tory to which the former of these words is applica-
ble, and the origin of the people to which the latter
is applied in the N. T. But a probable solution of
them may be gained by careful attention to the
historical statements of Holy Scripture and of Jo-
sephus, and by a consideration of the geographical
features of Palestine.

In the strictest sense of the term, a Samaritan
would be an inhabitant of the city of Samaria.
But it is not found at all' in this sense, exclusively
at any rate, in the O. T. In fact, it only occurs
there once, and then in a wider signification, in
2 K. xvii. 29. There it is employed to designate
those whom the king of Assyria had " placed in
(what are called) the cities of Samaria (whatever
these may be) instead of the children of Israel."

Were the word Samaritan found elsewhere in the
0. T., it would have designated those who be-
longed to the kingdom of the ten tribes, which in
a large sense was called Samaria. And as the ex-
tent of that kingdom varied, which it did very
much, gradually diminishing to the time of Shal-
maneser, so the extent of the word Samaritan would
have varied.

Samaria at first included all the tribes over
which Jeroboam made himself king, whether east
or west of the river Jordan. Hence, even before
the city of Samaria existed, we find the " old
prophet who dwelt at Bethel " describing the pre-
dictions of " the man of God who came from
Judah," in reference to the altar at Bethel, as
directed not merely against that altar, but
" against all the houses of the high-places which
are in the cities of Samaria'" (I K. xiii. 32), i. e.
of course, the cities of which Samaria was, or was
to be, the head or capital. In other places in the
historical books of the O. T. (with the exception
of 2 K. xvii. 24, 26, 28, 29) Samaria seems to
denote the city exclusively. But the prophets use
the word, much as did the old prophet of Bethel,
in a greatly extended sense. Thus the " calf of
Bethel" is called by Hosea (viii. 5, 6) the "calf
of Samaria " ; in Amos (iii. 9) the " mountains of

SAMARIA

Samaria" are spoken of; and the "captivity of
Samaria and her daughters " is a phrase found in
Ezekiel (xvi. 53). Hence the word Samaritan
must have denoted every one subject to the king of
the northern capital.

But, whatever extent the word might have ac-
quired, it necessarily became contracted as the
limits of the kingdom of Israel became contracted.
In all probability the territory of Simeon and that
of Dan were very early absorbed in the kingdom of
Judah. This would be one limitation. Next, in
B. c. 771 and 740 respectively, " Pul, king of As-
syria, and Tilgath-Pilneser, king of Assyria, carried
away the Keubenites and the Gadites, and the half-
tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah,
and Habor, and Mara, and to the river Gozan "
(1 Chr. V. 2G). This would be a second limitation.
But the latter of these kings went further: " He
took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and
Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all
the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to
Assyria" (2 K. xv. 29). This would be a third
limitation. Nearly a century before, B. c. 860,
"the Lord had begun to cut Israel short;" for
" Hazael, king of Syria, smote them in all the
coasts of Israel; from Jordan eastward, all the land
of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Keubenites, and the
Manassites, from Aroer, M'hich is by the river Ar-
non, even Gilead and Bashan " (2 K. x. 32, 33).
This, however, as M'e may conjecture from the di-
versity of expression, had been merely a passing
inroad, and had involved no permanent subjection
of the country or deportation of its inhabitants.
The invasions of Pul and of Tilgath-pibieser were
utter clearances of the population. The territory
thus desolated by them was probably occupied by
degrees by the pushing forward of the neighboring
heathen, or by straggling families of the Israelites
themselves. In reference to the northern part of
Galilee we know that a heathen population pre-
vailed. Hence the phrase '' Galilee of the Na-
tions," or " Gentiles " (Is. ix. 1; 1 Mace. v. 15).
And DO doubt this was the case also beyond Jor-
dan.

But we have yet to arrive at a fourth limitation
of the kingdom of Samaria, and by consequence, of
the word Samaritan. It is evident from an occur-
rence in Hezekiah's reign, that just before the dep-
osition and death of Hoshea, the last* king of Is-
rael, the authority of the king of Judah, or, at
least, his influence, was recognized by portions of
Asher, Issachar, and Zebuluu, and even of Ephraim
and Manasseh (2 Chr. xxx. 1-26). Men came
from all those tribes to the Passover at Jerusalem.
This was about B. c. 726. In fact, to such miser-
able limits had the kingdom of Samaria been re-
duced, that when, two or three years afterwards,
we are told that " Shalmaneser came up through-
out the land," and after a siege of three years
" took Samaria, and carried Israel away into As-
syria, and placed them in Halah, and in Habor by
the river Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes "
(2 K. xvii. 5, 6), and when again we are told that
" Israel was carried away out of their own land
into Assyria" (2 K. xvii. 23), we must suppose a
very small field of operations. Samaria (the city),
and a few adjacent cities or villages only, repre-
sented that dominion which had once extended
from Bethel to Dan northwards, and from the
Mediterranean to the borders of Syria and Am-
mon eastwards. This is further confirmed by
what we read of Josiah's progress, in b. c. 641,

SAMARIA

2799

through " the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim,
and Simeon, even unto Naphtali " (2 Chr. xxxiv.
6). Such a progress would have been impractica-
ble had the immber of cities and villages occupied
by the persons then called Samaritans been at all
large.

This, however, brings us more closely to the
second point of our discussion, the origin of those
who are in 2 K. xvii. 29, and in the N. T., called
Samaritans. Shalmaneser, as we have seen (2 K.
xvii. 5, 6, 26), carried Israel, i. e. the remnant of
the ten tribes which still acknowledged Hoshea's
authority, into Assyria. This remnant consisted,
as has been shown, of Samaria (the city) and a
few adjacent cities and villages. Now, 1. Did he
carry away all their inhabitants or no? 2.
Whether they were wholly or only partially des-
olated, who replaced the deported population?
On the answer to these inquiries will depend our
determination of the questions, were the Samari-
tans a mixed race, composed partly of Jews, partly
of new settlers, or were they purely of foreign ex-
traction ?

In reference to the former of these inquiries, it
may be observed that the language of Scripture
admits of scarcely a doubt. " Israel was carried
away " (2 K. xvii. 6, 23), and other nations were
placed " in the cities of Samaria instead of the
children of Israel " (2 K. xvii. 24). There is no
mention whatever, as in the case of the somewhat
parallel destruction of the kingdom of Judah, of
" the poor of the land being left to be vine-dressers
and husbandmen " (2 K. xxv. 12). We add, that,
had any been left, it would have been impossible
for the new inhabitants to have been so utterly
unable to acquaint themselves with " the manner
of the God of the land," as to require to be taught
by some priest of the Captivity sent from the king
of Assyria. Besides, it was not an unusual thing
with oriental conquerors actually to exhaust a land
of its inhabitants. Comp. Herod, iii. 149, " The
Pei*sians dragged {aay-qv^vcravres) Samos, and
delivered it up to Syloson stript of all its men; "
and, again, Herod, vi. 31, for the application of
the same treatment to other islands, where the
process called aay7]V(viiv is described, and is com-
pared to a hunting out of the population {eKdTjpfv-
ety). Such a capture is presently contrasted with
the capture of other territories to which (ra-yrji/ew-
eiv was not applied. Josephus's phrase in refer-
ence to the cities of Samaria is that Shalmaneser
"transplanted all the people" (Atit. ix. 14, § 1).
A threat against Jerusalem, which was indeed only
partially carried out, shows how complete and sum-
mary the desolation of the last relics of the sister
kingdom must have been : " I will stretch over
Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet
of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem
as a man wipeth a dish : he wipeth and turneth it
upon the face thereof" (2 K. xxi. 13). This was
uttered within forty years after B. c. 721, during
the reign of Manasseh. It must have derived
much strength from the recentness and proximity
of the calamity.

We may then conclude that the cities of Sama-
ria were not merely partially, but wholly evacuated
of their inhabitants in B. c. 721, and that they re-
mained in this desolated state until, in the words
of 2 K. xvii. 24, " the king of Assyria brought
men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from
Ava (Ivah, 2 K. xviii. 34), and from Hamath. and
from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of

2800

SAMARIA

Samaria instead of the children of Israel : and they
possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof."
Thus the new Samaritans — for such we must now
call them — were Assyrians by birth or subjuga-
tion, were utterly strangers in the cities of Sama-
ria, and were exclusively the inhabitants of those
cities. An incidental question, however, arises.
Who was the king of Assyria that effected this
colonization? At first sight, one would suppose
Shalmaneser; for the narrative is scarcely broken,
and the repeopling seems to be a natural sequence
of the depopulation. Such would appear to have
been Josephus' view, for he says of Shalmaneser,
" When he had removed the people out of their
land, he brought other nations out of Cuthah, a
place so called (for there is still in Persia a river
of that name), into Samaria and the country of
the Israelites" (Ant. ix. 14, §§ ], 3; x. 9, § 7);
but he must have been led to this interpretation
simply by the juxtaposition of the two transactions
in the Hebrew text. The Samaritans themselves,
in Ezr. iv. 2, 10, attributed their colonization not
to Shalmaneser, but to " Esar-haddon, king of As-
sur," or to " the great and noble Asnapper," either
the king himself or one of his generals. It was
probably on his invasion of Judah, in the reign of
Manasseh, about B. c. 677, that Esarhaddon dis-
covered the impolicy of leaving a tract upon the
very frontiers of that kingdom thus desolate, and
determined to garrison it with foreigners. The
fact, too, that some of these foreigners came from
Babylon would seem to direct us to Esarhaddon,
rather than to his grandfather, Shalmaneser. It
was only recently that Babylon had come into the
hands of the Assyrian king. And there is an-
other reason why this date should be preferred. It
coincides with the termination of the sixty-five years
of Isaiah's prophecy, delivered b. c. 742, within
which " Ephraim should be broken that it should
not be a people" (Is. vii. 8). This was not effect-
ually accomplished until the very land itself was
occupied by strangers. So long as this had not
taken place, there might be hope of return : after it
had taken place, no hope. Josephus (Ant. x. 9, § 7)
expressly notices this difference in the cases of the
ten and of the two tribes. The land of the former
became the possession of foreigners, the land of the
latter, not so.

These strangers, whom we will now assume to
have been placed in "the cities of Samaria " by
Esarhaddon, were of course idolaters, and wor-
shipped a strange medley of divinities. Each of
the five nations, says Josephus, who is confirmed
by the words of Scripture, had its own god. No
place was found for the worship of Him who had
once called the land his own, and whose it was
still. God's displeasure was kindled, and they were
infested by beasts of prey, which had probably
increased to a great extent before their entrance
upon it. " The Lord sent lions among them, which
slew some of them." On their explaining their
miserable condition to the king of Assyria, he de-
spatched one of the captive priests to teach them
" how they should fear the Lord." The priest
came accordingly, and henceforth, in the language
of the sacred historian, they " feared the Lord, and
served their graven images, both their children and
their children's children: as did their fethers, so
do they unto this day " (2 K. xvii. 41). This last
sentence was probably inserted by Ezra. It serves
two purposes : 1st, to qualify the pretensions of the
Samaritans of Ezra's time to be pure worshippers

of God — they were no more exclusively his ser
vants, than was the Roman emperor who desired
to place a statue of Christ in the Pantheon enti
tied to be called a Christian ; and, 2dly, to show
how entirely the Samaritans of later days differed
from their ancestors in respect to idolatry. Jose-
phus's account of the distress of the Samaritans,
and of the remedy for it, is very similar, with the
exception that with him they are afflicted with
pestilence.

Such was the origin of the post-captivity or new
Samaritans — men not of Jewish extraction, but
from the further East: "the Cuthseans had for-
merly belonged to the iimer parts of Persia and
Media, but were then called ' Samaritans,' taking
the name of the country to which they were re-
moved," says Josephus {Ant. x. 9, §.7). And
again he says (Ant. ix. 14, § 3) they are called " in
Hebrew ' Cuthaeans,' but in Greek ' Samaritans.' "
Our Lord expressly terms them aWoyeyels (Luke
xvii. 18); and Josephus' whole account of them
shows that he believed them to have been jj.4roLKOi
aWoeduels, though, as he tells us in two places
(Ant. ix. 14, § 3, and xi. 8, § 6), they sometimes
gave a different account of their origin. But of
this by-and-by. A gap occurs in their history
until Judah has returned from captivity. They
then desire to be allowed to participate in the re-
building of the Temple at Jerusalem. It is curi-
ous, and perhaps indicative of the treacherous
character of their designs, to find them even then
called, by anticipation, " the adversaries of Judah
and Benjamin" (Ezr. iv. 1), a title which they
afterwards fully justified. But, so far as profes-
sions go, they are not enemies; they are most
anxious to be friends. Their rehgion, they assert,
is the same as that of the two tribes, therefore
they have a right to share in that great religious
undertaking. But they do not call it a national
undertaking. They advance no pretensions to Jew-
ish blood. They confess their Assyrian descent,
and even put it forward ostentatiously, perhaps to
enhance the merit of their partial conversion to
God. That it was but partial they give no hint.
It may have become purer already, but we have no
information that it had. Be this, however, as jt
may, the Jews do not listen favorably to their over-
tures. Ezra, no doubt, from whose pen we have a
record of the transaction, saw them through and
through. On this the Samaritans throw off the
mask, and become open enemies, frustrate the
operations of the Jews through the reigns of two
Persian kings, and are only effectually silenced in
the reign of Darius Hystaspis, b. c. 519.

The feud, thus unhappily begun, grew year by
year more inveterate. It is probable, too, that the
more the Samaritans detached themselves from
idols, and became devoted exclusively to a sort of
worship of Jehovah, the more they resented the
contempt with which the Jews treated their offers
of fraternization. Matters at length came to a
climax. About b. c. 409, a certain Manasseh, a
man of priestly lineage, on being expelled from
Jerusalem by Nehemiah for an unlawful marriage,
obtained permission from the Persian king of his
day, Darius Nothus, to build a temple on Mount
Gerizim, for the Samaritans, with whom he had
found refuge. The only thing wanted to crystal-
lize the opposition between the two races, namely,
a rallying point for schismatical worship, being
now obtained, their animosity became more intense
than ever. The Samaritans are said to have done

red M

SAMARIA

everything in their power to annoy the Jews.
They would refuse hospitality to pilgrims on their
road to Jerusalem, as in our Lord's case. They
would even waylay them in their journey (Joseph.
Ant. XX. 6, § 1) ; and many were compelled through
fear to take the longer route by the east of Jordan.
Certain Samaritans were said to have once pene-
trated into the Temple of Jerusalem, and to have
defiled it by scattering dead men's bones on the
sacred pavement {Ant. xviii. 2, § 2). We are told
too of a strange piece of mockery which must have
been especially resented. It was the custom of the
Jews to communicate to their brethren still in
Babylon the exact day and hour of the rising of
the paschal moon, by beacon-fires commencing from
Mount Olivet, and flashing forward from hill to
hill until they were mirrored in the Euphrates.
So the Greek poet represents Agamemnon as con-
veying the news of Troy's capture to the anxious
watcliers at Mycenae. Those who "sat by the
waters of liabylon " looked for this signal with
much interest. It enabled them to share in the
devotions of those who were in their father-land,
and it proved to them that they were not forgotten.
The Samaritans thought scorn of these feelings,
and would not unfrequently deceive and disappoint
them, by kindling a rival flame and perplexing the
watchers on the mountains." Their own temple
on Gerizim they considered to be much superior to
that at Jerusalem. There they sacrificed a pass-
over. Towards the mountain, even after tlie tem-
ple on it had fallen, wherever they were, they
directed their worship. To their copy of the Law
they arrogated an antiquity and authority greater
than attached to any copy in the possession of the
Jews. The Law (i. e. the five books of Moses)
was their sole code; for they rejected every other
book in the Jewish canon. And they professed to
observe it better than did the .lews themselves,
employing the expression not unfrequently, " The
Jews indeed do so and so; but we, observing the
letter of the I^w, do otherwise."

The Jews, on the other hand, were not more
conciliatory in their treatment of the Samaritans.
The copy of the Law possessed by that people they
declared to be the legacy of an apostate (Manasseh ),
and cast grave suspicions upon its genuineness.
Certain other Jewish renegades had fr«ra time to
time taken refuge with the Samaritans. Hence,
by degrees, the Samaritans claimed to partake of
Jewish blood, especially if doing so hapgened to
suit their interest (Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, § 6; ix. 14,
§ 3). A remarkable instance of this is exhibited
in a request which they made to Alexander the
Great, about B. c. 332. They desired to be excused
payment of tribute in the sabbatical year, on the
plea that as true Israelites, descendants of Ephraim
and Manasseh, sons of Joseph, they refrained from
cultivating their land in that year. Alexander, on
cross-questioning them, discovered the hollowness
of their pretensions. (They were greatly discon-
certed at their failure, and their dissatisfaction

SAMARIA

2801

probably led to the conduct which induced Alex-
ander to besiege and destroy the city of Samaria.
Shechem was indeed their metropolis, but the de-
struction of Samaria seems to have satisfied Alex-
ander.) Another instance of claim to Jewish
descent appears in the words of the woman of
Samaria to our Lord (John iv. 12), "Art Thou
greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the
well? " A question which she puts without recol-
lecting that she had just before strongly contrasted
the Jews and the Samaritans. Very far were the
Jews from admitting this claim to consanguinity
on the part of these people. They were ever remind-
ing them that they were after all mere Cuthseans,
mere strangers from Assyria. They accused them
of woi-shipplng the idol-gods buried long ago under
the oak of Shechem (Gen. xxxv. 4). They would
have no deaUngs with them that they could possi-
bly avoid.'' " Thou art a Samaritan and hast a
devil," was the mode in which they expressed
themsehes when at a loss for a bitter reproach.
Everything that a Samaritan had touched was as
swine's flesh to them. The Samaritan was pub-
licly cursed in their synagogues — could not be
adduced as a witness in the Jewish courts — could
not be admitted to any sort of proselytism — and
was thus, so far as the Jew could affect his posi-
tion, excluded from hope of eternal life. The tra-
ditional hatred in which the Jew held him is
expressed in Ecclus. 1. 25, 26, " There be two man-
ner of nations which my heart abhorreth, and the
third is no nation : they that sit on the mountain
of Samaria ; and they that dwell among the Philis-
tines; and that foolish people that dwell in Sichem."
And so long was it before such a temper could be
banished from the Jewish mind, that we find even
the Apostles believing that an inhospitable slight
shown by a Samaritan villsige to Christ would be
not unduly avenged by calling down fire fix)m
heaven.

" Ye know not what spirit ye are of," said the
large-hearted Son of Man, and we find Him on no
one occasion uttering anything to the disparage-
ment of the Samaritans. His words, however, and
the records of his ministrations confirm most
thoroughly the view which has been taken above,
that the Samaritans were not Jews. At the first
sending forth of the Twelve (Matt. x. 5, 6) He
charges them, " Go not into the way of the Gen-
tiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye
not, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel." So again, in his final address to them
on Mount Olivet, " Ye shall be witnesses to Me in
Jerusalem and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and
unto the uttermost part of the earth " (Acts i. 8).
So the nine unthankful lepers, Jews, were con-
trasted by Him with the tenth leper, the thankful
stranger (aWoyevris), who was a Samaritan. So,
in his well-known parable, a merciful Samaritan is
contrasted with the unmerciful priest and Levite.
And the very worship of the two races is described
by Him as diflferent in character. " Ye worship ye

a ■' This fact," says Dr. Trench, " is mentioned by
Makrizi (see De Sacy's direst. Arahe, ii. 159), who
affirms that it was this which put the Jews on making
accurate calculations to determine the moment of the
new mooa's appearance (comp. Schoettgen's Hor. Heb.
i. 544).''

b This prejudice had, of course, sometimes to give
way to necessity, for the disciples had gone to Sychar
to buy food, while our Lord was talking with the

woman of Samaria by the well in its suburb (John iv.
8). And from Luke ix. 52, we learn that the disciples
went before our Lord at his command into a certain
village of the Samaritans " to make ready " for Him.
Unless, indeed (though, as we see on both occasions,
our Lord's influence over them was not yet complete),
we are to attribute this partial abandonment of their
ordinary scruples to the change which his example
had already wrought in them.

2802 SAMARIA

know not what," this is said of the Samaritans :
«< We know what we worship, for salvation is of
the Jews" (John iv. 22).

Such were the Samaritans of our Lord's Day: a
people distinct from the Jews, though lying in
the very midst of the Jews; a people preserving
their identity, though seven centuries had rolled
away since they had been brought from Assyria
by Esarhaddon, and though they had al)andoned
their polytheism for a sort of ultra Mosaicism ; a
people, who — though their limits had been grad-
ually contracted, and the rallying place of their
religion on Mount Gerizim had been destroyed one
hundred and sixty years before by John Hyrcanus
(b, c. 130), and though Samaria (the city) had
been again and again destroyed, and though their
territory had been the battle-field of Syria and
Egypt — still preserved their nationality, still wor-
shipped ft-om Shechem and their other impoverished
settlements towards their sacred hill ; still retained
their nationality, and could not coalesce with the
Jews: —

"O^o? T oAeic^a t' eyxe'aj TavTcjJ (cvret,
Ai\oaTaTOvvT av ov ^lAws irpoo'ei'veTroii.

Not indeed that we must suppose that the M'hole
of the country called in our Lord's time Samaria
was in the possession of the Cuthsean Samaritans,
or that it had ever been so. " Samaria," says
Josephus (B. J. iii. 3, § 4), "lies between Judsea
and Galilee. It commences from a village called
Ginsea (Jenin), on the great plain (that of Esdra-
elon), and extends to the toparchy of Acrabatta,"
in the lower part of the territory of Ephraim.
These points, indicating the extreme northern and
the extreme southern parallels of latitude between
which Samaria was situated, enable us to fix its
boundaries with tolerably certainty. It was bounded
northward by the range of hills which commences
at Mount Carmel on the west, and, after making a
bend to the southwest, runs almost due east to the
valley of the Jordan, forming the southern border
of the plain of Esdraelon. It touched towards the
south, as nearly as possible, the northern limits of
Benjamin. Thus it comprehended the ancient ter-
ritory of Ephraim, and of those Manassites who
were west of Jordan. " Its character," Josephus
continues, " is in no respect diflTerent from that of
Judaea. Both abound in mountains and plains,
and are suited for agriculture, and productive,
wooded, and full of fruits both wild and cultivated.
They are not abundantly watered ; but much rain
falls there. The springs are of an exceedingly
sweet taste ; and, on account of the quantity of
good grass, the cattle there produce more milk
than elsewhere. But the best proof of their rich-
ness and fertility is that both are thickly pop-
ulated." The accounts of modern travellers con-
firm this description by the Jewish historian of
the " good land " which was allotted to that pow-
erful portion of the house of Joseph which crossed
the Jordan, on the first division of the territory.
The Cuthaean Samaritans, however, possessed only
a few towns and villages of this large area, and
these lay almost together in the centre of the dis-
trict. Shechem or Sychar (as it was contempt-
uously designated) was their chief settlement, even
before Alexander the Great destroyed Samaria,
probably because it lay almost close to Mount
Grerizim. Afterwards it became more prominently
10, and there, on the destruction of the temple on
Gerizim, by John Hyrcanus (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9,

SAMARIA

§ 1), they built themselves a temple. The modem
representative of Shechem is Nablus, a corruption
of Neapolis, or the "New Town," built by Ves-
pasian a little to the west of the older town which
was then ruined. At Ndblus the Samaritans have
still a settlement, consisting of about 200 persons.
Yet they observe the Law, and celebrate the Pass-
over on a sacred spot on Mount Gerizim, with an
exactness of minute ceremonial which the Jews
themselves have long intermitted :

" Quaaquam diruta, servat
Ignem Trojanum, et Vestam edit Alba minorem."

The Samaritans were very troublesome both to
their Jewish neighbors and to their Roman mas-
ters, in the first century, A. D. Pilate chastised
them with a severity which led to his own down-
fall (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 4, § 1), and a slaughter of
10,600 of them took place under Vespasian {B. J.
iii. 7, § 32). In spite of these reverses they in-
creased greatly in numbers towards its termination,
and appear to have grown into importance under
Dositheus, who was probably an apostate Jew.
Epiphanius {adv. Hcereses, lib. i.), in the fourth
century, considers them to be the chief and most
dangerous adversaries of Christianity, and he enu-
merates the several sects into which they had by
that time divided themselves. They were popu-
larly, and even by some of the Fathers, confounded
with the .Tews, insomuch that a legal interpretation
of the Gospel was described as a tendency to
'^.a/xapeiTiafiSs or ^lovSai(Tfi6s. This confusion,
however, did not extend to an identification of the
two races. It was simply an assertion that their
extreme opinions were identical. And pre^•iously
to an outrage which they committed on the Chris-'
tians at Neapolis in the reign of Zeno, towards
the end of the fifth century, the distinction between
them and the Jews was sutRciently known, and
even recognized in the Theodosian Code. This
was so severely punished, that they sank into an
obscurity, which, though they are just noticed by
travellers of the twelfth and fourteenth centuries,
was scarcely broken until the sixteenth century.
In the latter half of that century a correspondence
with them was commenced by Joseph Scaliger.
(De Sacy has edited two of their letters to that
eminent scholar.) Job Ludolf received a letter
from them, in the latter half of the next century.
These three letters are to be found in Eichhorn's
Rejyertarium fur Biblische unci Morgenlcindische
Litteratur, vol. xiii. They are of great archa;o-
logical interest, and enter very minutely into the
observances of the Samaritan ritual. Among other
points worthy of notice in them is the inconsistency
displayed by the writers in valuing themselves on
not being Jews, and yet claiming to be descendants
of Joseph. See also De Sacy's Corresjjondance
des Samaritains, etc., in Notices et Extr. des MSS.
de la Biblioth. du Roi, etc., vol. xii. And, for
more modern accounts of the people themselveSj
Robinson's Biblical Researches, ii. 280-311, iii.
129-30; Wilson's Lands of the Bible, ii. 46-78;
Van de Velde's Syria and Palestine, ii. 296 seq.;
Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, p. 240; Rogers's
Notices of the Moder-n Samaritans, p. 25 ; Grove's
account of their Day of Atonement in Vacation
Tourists for 1861; and Dr. Stanley's, of their
Passover, in his Lectures on the Jexoish Church,
App. iii. [Passover, vol. iii. p. 2357 f., Amer.
ed.]

The view maintained in the above remarks, as

SAMARITAN

to the purely Assyrian origin of the New Samari-
tans, is that of Suicer, Kelaud, Hammond, Urusius
in the Critici Sacri, Maldonatus, Hengstenberg,
Hiivernick, Kobinsou, and Dean 'J'l-ench. The
reader is referred to the very clear but too brief
discussion of the subject by the last-mentioned
learned writer, in his Parables, pp. 310, 311, and
to the authorities, especially De Sacy, which are
there quoted. There is no doubt in the world
that it was the ancient view. We have seen what
Josephus said, and Origen, Eusebius, Kpiphanius,
Chrysostom, and Theodoret, say the same thing.
Socrates, it must be admitted, calls the Samaritans
air6(rxiO'fJ-a 'lovdaiuu, but he stands almost alone
among the ancients in making this assertion. Ori-
gen and C'yril indeed both mention their claim to
descent from Joseph, as evidenced in the statement
of the woman at the well, but mention it only to
declare it unfounded. Others, as Winer, Dollin-
ger, and Dr. Davidson, have held a different view,
which may be expressed thus in DilUinger's own
words: "In the northern part of the Promised
Land (as opposed to Judaea proper) there grew up
a mingled nice which drew its origin from the
remnant of the Israelites who were left behind in
the country on the removal of the Ten Tribes, and
also from the heathen colonists who were trans-
planted into the cities of Israel. Their religion
was as hybrid as their extraction ; they worshipped
Jehovah, but, in addition to Him, also the heathen
idols of Phoenician origin which they had brought
from their native land" {Ihidenthum tind Juden-
thuni, p. 739, § 7). If the words of Scripture are
to be taken alone, it does not appear how this view
is to be maintained. At any rate, as Drusius ob-
serves, the only mixture was that of Jewish apos-
tate fugitives, long after Esarhaddon's colonization,
not at the time of the colonization. Hut modern
as this view is. it has for some years been the pop-
ular one, and even Dr. Stanley seems, though
quite incidentally, to have admitted it (-S. ^ P.
p. 240). He does not, however, enter u\>ou its de-
fense. Mr. Grove is also in favor of it. See his
notice already mentioned.

The authority due to the copy of the I^w pos-
sessed by the Samaritans, and the determination
whether the Samaritan reading of Deut. xxvii. 4,
Genzim, or that of the Hebrew, Ebal, is to be
preferred, are discussed in the next article. [See
Samaritan Pentateuch; Ebal; Gerizim;
Shechem; Sichem; Sychar.] J. A. H.

* On Samaria and the Samaritans see the elab-
orate article of J. H. Petermarm in Herzog's Rea/-
Encyki. xiii. 359-391 (comp. his Reisen tin Orient,
Leipz. 1860-61, i. 269-292). See also John Mills's
Three Months' Residence in Nablus, Lond. 1864,
and a series of learned articles by Dr. Geiger in
the Zeitschr. d. deutschen moi-genl. Gesellschoft
from 1862 to 1868. A.

* SAMARITAN. [Samaria, 3.]

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH, a Recen-
sion of the commonly received Hebrew Text of the
Mosaic Iaw, in use with the Samaritans, and writ-
ten in the ancient Hebrew {Ibii\ or so-called

tinguished from S"nTV, nmtSTS ^nS. Comp.
Synh. 21 b, Jer. Meg. 5, 2 ; Tosifla Si/nh.i; Synkedr.
22 a, Meg. Jer. 1, 9, Sola Jer. 7, 2, sq.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2803

Samaritan character." This recension is found
vaguely quoted by some of the early Fathers of the
Church, under the name of " UaXaiSTarov 'Efipai-
Khv rh iraph. 'S.afxapiira.'is,'''' in contradistinction to
the ^^'E^pa'iKhv rh irapa 'louSajois; " further, as
" Samaritanorum Volumina," etc. Thus Origen on
Num. xiii, 1, . ..." & koI outo e/c tovtuv 2a-
/xapfiToJi/ 'E^pa'iKov fji.fT€^d\ofA.ey:i^' and on Num.
xxi. 13, . . . " & eV ix6vois ruy 'Xafxapfiruv cvpo-
/xej/," etc. Jerome, Prol. to Kings: •'Samaritani
etiam Pentateuchum Moysis tutidem (? 22, like
the "Hebrews, Syrians and Chaldseans") litteris
habent, figuris tantum et apicibus discrepautes."
Also on Gal. iii. 10, "quam ob causam " — (viz.
'EiTiKaTaparos irashs ovk ifj.fi€V€i iv iraai ro7s
yeypafifjLfyois, being quoted there from Deut. xxvii.

26, where the Masoretic text has only "^IZ^S "TlHS

nsrn nn^nn nni ns D^p^ wb- "cursed

be he that confirmeth not ^ the words of this Law
to do them ; " while the LXX. reads ttS $ ipOpceiros
. . iraai toTs \6yois) — "quam ob causam Sa-
maritanorum Hebraea volumina relegens inveni

/D scriptum esse; " and be foilhwith charges the

Jews with having deliberately taken out the /D,
because they did not wish to be bound individually
to all the ordinances : forgetting at the same time

that this same vD occurs in the very next chap-
ter of the Masoretic text (Deut. xxviii. 15) — ''All
his commandments and his statutes." Eusebius
of Csesarea observes that the LXX, and the Sam.
Pent, agree against the Received Text in the num-
ber of years from the Deluge to Abraham, Cyril
of Alexandria speaks of certain words (Gen. iv. 8),
wanting in the Hebrew, but found in the Samari-
tan. The same remark is made by Procopius of
Gaza with respect to Deut. i. 6; Num. x. 10, x.
9, &c. Other passages are noticed by Diodorus,
the Greek Scholiast, etc. The Talmud, on the
other hand, mentions the Sam. Pent, distinctly
and contemptuously as a clumsily forged record:
" You have /alsijied<^ your Pentateuch,'' said R.
Eliezer b. Shimon to the Samaritan scribes, with
reference to a passage in Deut. xi. 30, where the
well-understood word Shechem was gratuitously
inserted after " the plains of Moreh," — "and you
have not profited aught by it " (comp. Jer. Sotah
21 b, cf. 17; Bahli 33 b). On another occasion
they are ridiculed on account of their ignorance of
one of the simplest rules of Hebrew Grammar, dis-
played in their Pentateuch ; namely, the use of the H
locale (unknown, however, according to Jer. Meg.
6, 2, also to the people of Jerusalem ). " Who has
caused you to blunder f" said R. Shimon b. Elie-
zer to them; referring to their abolition of the
Mosaic ordinance of marrying the deceased broth-
er's wife (Deut. xxv. 5 ff.), — through a misinter-
pretation of the passage in question, which enjoins
that the wife of the dead man shall not be " with-
out " to a stranger, but that the brother should

marry her: they, however, taking rf!^inn
(=V"in^) to be an epithet of Htt^N, "wife,"

b The A. V., following the LXX., and perhaps Lu-
ther, has inserted the word all.

c nns^'n.

2804 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

translated "the outer wi/e,'^ i. e. the betrothed
only {Jer. Jebam. 3, 2, Ber. R., etc.)-

Down to within the last two hundred and fifty
years, however, no copy of this divergent Code of
Laws had reached Europe, and it began to be pro-
nounced a fiction, and the plain words of the
Church Fathers — the better known authorities —
who quoted it, were subjected to subtle interpre-
tations. Suddenly, in 10 10, Pietro della Valle,
one of the first discoverers also of the Cuneiform
inscriptions, acquired a complete Codex from the
Samaritans in Damascus. In 1023 it was pre-
sented by Achille Harley de Sancy to the Library
of the Oratory in Paris, and in 1028 there ap-
peared a brief description of it by J. Morinus in
his preface to the Konian text of the LXX. Three
years later, shortly before it was published in the
Paris Polyglott, — whence it was copied, wath few
emendations from other codices, by Walton, —
Morinus, the first editor, wrote his Exercitationes
Ecclesiaslicm in utrumque Samaiitanorum Pent(v-
teuc/mm, in which he pronounced the newly found
Codex, with all its innumerable Variants from the
Masoretic text, to be infinitely superior to the lat-
ter: in fact, the unconditional and speedy emenda-
tion of the Received Text thereby was urged most
authoritatively. And now the impulse was given
to one of the fiercest and most barren literary and
theological controversies: of which more anon.
Between 1020 and 1030 six additional copies, partly
complete, partly incomplete, were acquired by
Ussher: five of which he deposited in English
libraries, while one was sent to De Dieu, and has
disappeared mysteriously. Another Codex, now in
the Ambrosian Library at JUilan, was brought to
Italy in 1021. Peiresc procured two more, one of
which was placed in the Eoyal Library of Paris,

(250) 31 D^^nWD l^'^p I ptt^Wnn *1DD ntn [Masoret. Cod. 12 Sidras (Parshioth), 50 Chapters].

(200) n^nsD " "^atcn » " [ " n " 40 » ]

(i30)D'^K7ibtt7in«n » ^whwn » » [ " 10 » 27 " i

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

and one in the Barberini at Rome. Thus the num-
ber of MSS. in Europe gradually grew to sixteen.
During the present century another, but very frag-
mentary copy, was acquired by the Gotlia Library.
A copy of the entire (V) Pentateuch, with Targum
(? Sam. Version), in parallel columns, 4to, on
parchment, was brought from Ndblus by Mr. Grove
in 1801 for the Count of Paris, in whose library it
is. Single portions of the Sam. Pent., in a more
or less defective state, are now of no rare occur-
rence in Europe.

Respecting the external condition of these MSS.,
it may be observed that their sizes vary from 12mo
to folio, and that no scroll, such as the Jews and
the Samaritans use in their synagogues, is to be
found among them. The letters, which are of a
size corresponding to that of tlie book, exhibit
none of those varieties of shape so frequent in the
Masor. Text; such as majuscules, minuscules, sus-
pended, inverted letters, etc. Their material is
vellum or cotton-paper; the ink used is black in
all cases save the scroll used by the Samaritans at
Ndblus, the letters of which are in gold. There
are neither vowels, accents, nor diacritical points.
The individual words are separated from each other
by a dot. Greater or smaller divisions of the text
are marked by two dots placed one above the other,
and by an asterisk. A small line above a conso-
nant indicates a peculiar meaning of the word, an
unusual form, a passive, and the like : it is, in fact,
a contrivance to bespeak attention.** The whole
Pentateuch is divided into nine hundred and sixty-
four paragraphs, or Kazzin, the termination of
which is indicated by these figures, = , .•., or <.
At the end of each book the number of its divis-
ions is stated thus : —

(218) n*'i • n » •'r^mn "

a66) "iDvp » ^tc'^'^nn "

The Sam. Pentateuch is halved in Lev. vii. 15
(viii. 8, in Hebrew Text), where the words " Middle
of the Thorah " *> are found. At the end of each
MS. the year of the copying, the name of the scribe,
and also that of the proprietor, are usually stated.
Yet their dates are not always trustworthy when
given, and very difficult to be conjectured when en-
tirely omitted, since the Samaritan letters afford no
internal evidence of the {jeriod in which they were
written. To none of the MSS., however, which
have as yet reached Europe, can be assigned a
higher date than the 10th Christian century. The
scroll used in Ndblus bears — so the Samaritans
pretend — the following inscription: "I, Abisha,

a r\yn and npjl^ IV and 12?, nyi and

nn"i, b« and b«, b^s*- and bDt^\ snp>

and M'^p'), W and tJ?, the suffixes at the end of a
word, the H without a dagesh, etc., are thus pointed
out to the reader.

c It would appear, however (see Archdeacon Tat-
tam'B notice in the Parthenon, No. 4, May 24, 1862),

son of Pinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the
Priest, — upon them be the Grace of Jehovah ! To
his honor have I written this Holy Law at the en-
trance of the Tabernacle of Testimony on the
Mount Gerizim, Beth El, in the thirteenth year of
the taking possession of the Land of Canaan, and
all its boundaries around it, by the Children of Is-
rael. I praise Jehovah." (Letter of Meshalmah
b. Ab Sechuah, Cod. 19,791, Add. MSS. Brit. Mus.
Comp. Epist. Sam. Sichemitarwn ad Jobum Lu-
dolphum, Cizae, 1088 ; Antiq. Eccl. Orient, p. 123 ;
Huntingtoni Epist. pp. 49, 50: Eichhorn's Reper-
ioi'iumf. bibl. und morg. Lit., torn, ix., etc.) But
no European <^ has ever succeeded in finding it in

that Mr. Levysohn, a person lately attached to the
Russian staff in Jerusalem, has found the inscription
in question " going through the middle of the body of
the Text of the Decalogue, and extending through
three columns." Considering that the Samaritans
themselves told Huntington, " that this inscription
had been in their scroll once, but must have been
erased by some wicked hand," this startling piece of
information must be received with extreme caution :
no less so than the other more or less vague state-
ments with respect to the labors and pretended discov-
eries of Mr. Levysohn. See note. p. 2810.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

this scroll, however great the pains bestowed upon
the search (comp. Eichhom, Einkit. ii. 132); and
even if it had been found, it would not have de-
served the slightest credence.

We have briefly stated above that the Exercita-
tiones of Morinus, which placed the Samaritan Pen-
ta,teueh far above the Received Text in point of
genuineness, — partly on account of its agreeing in
many places with the LXX., and partly on ac-
count of its superior " lucidity and harmony," —
excited and kept up for nearly two hundred years
one of the most extraordinary controversies on rec-
ord. Characteristically enough, however, this was
set at rest once for all by the very first systematic
investigation of the point at issue. It would now
appear as if the unquestioning rapture with which
every new literary discovery was formerly hailed,
the iniate animosity against the Masoretic (Jewish)
Text, the general preference for the LXX., the de-
fective state of Semitic studies, — as if, we say,
all these put together were not sufficient to account
for the phenomenon that men of any critical acu-
men could i'or one moment not only place the Sam.
Pent, on a par with the Masoretic Text, but even
raise it, unconditionally, far above it. There was
indeed another cause at work, especially in the first
period of the dispute: it was a controversial spirit
which prompted Morinus and his followers, Cap-
pellus and others, to prove to the Reformers what
kind of value was to be attiiched to their authority:
the received form of the Bible, upon which and
which alone they professed to take their stand ; —
it was now evident that nothing short of the Di-
vine Spirit, under the hifluence and inspiration of
which the Scriptures were interpreted and ex-
pounded by the Roman (,'hurch, could be relied
upon. On the other hand, most of the " Antiino-
rinians'''' — De Muys, Hottinger, St. Morinus,
Buxtorf, Fuller, Leusden, Pfeiffer, etc. — instead
of patiently and critically examining the subject
and refuting their adversaries by arguments which
were within their reach, as they are within ours,
directed their attacks against the persons of the
Morinians, and thus their misguided zeal left the
question of the superiority of the new document
over the old where they found it. Of higher value
were, it is true, the labors of Simon, Le Clerc,
Walton, etc., at a later period, who proceeded ec-
lectically, rejecting many readings, and adopting
others which seemed preferable to those of the old
text. Houbigant, however, with unexampled igno-
rance and obstinacy, returned to Morinus's first
notion — already generally abandoned — of the un-
questionable and thorough superiority. He, again,
was followed more or less closely by Kennicott, Al.
a St. Aquilino, Lobstein, Geddes, and others. The
discussion was taken up once more on the other
side, chiefly by Ravius, who succeeded in finally
disposing of this point of the superiority (Exercitt.
Phil, in Houbiy. Prol. Lugd. Bat. 1755). It was
from his day forward allowed, almost on all hands,

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2805

that the Masoretic Text was the genuine one, but
that in doubtful cases, when the Samaritan had an
"unquestionably clearer" reading, this was to be
adopted, since a certain amount of value, however
limited, did attach to it. Michaelis, Eichhoni,
Bertholdt, Jahn, and the majority of modern crit-
ics, adhered to this opinion. Here the matter
rested until 1815, when Gesenius {De Pent. Sam.
Orif/ine, Indole, et Auctoritate) abohshed the rem-
nant of the authority of the Sam. Pent. So mas-
terly, lucid, and clear are his arguments and his
proofs, that there has been and will be no further
question as to the absence of all value in this Re-
cension, and in its pretended emendations. In
fact, a glance at the systematic arrangement of the
variants, of which he first of all bethought himself,
is quite sufficient to convince the reader at once
that they are for the most part mere blunders,
arising from an imperfect knowledge of the first
elements of grammar and exegesis. That others
owe their existence to a studied design of conform-
ing certain passages to the Samaritan mode of
thought, speech, and faith — more especially to
show that the Mount Gerizim, upon which their
temple stood, was the spot chosen and indicated by
God to Moses as the one ujwn which He desired to
be worshipped." Finally, that others are due to a
tendency towards removing, as well as linguistic
shortcomings would allow, all that seemed obscure
or in any way doubtful, and towards filling up all
apparent imperfections : either by repetitions or by
means of newly-invented and badly-fitting words
and phrases. It must, however, be premised that,
except two alterations (Ex. xiii. 7, where the Sam.
reads " Six days shalt thou eat unleavened bread,"
instead of the received " Seven days," and the

change of the word TT^nn, » There shall not fte,*'

into nTin, " ZiVe," Deut. xxiii. 18), the Mosaic
laws and ordinances themselves are nowhere tam-
pered with.

We will now proceed to lay specimens of these
once so highly prized variants before the reader, in
order that he may judge for himself. We shall
follow in this the commonly received arrangement
of Gesenius, who divides all these readings into
eight classes; to which, as we shall afterwards
show, Frankel has suggested the addition of two or
three others, while Kirchheim (in his Hebrew work

]1'^/21tt7 **?3"n3) enumerates thirteen,^ which we
will name hereafter.

1. The first class, then, consists of readings by
which emendations of a grammatical nature have
been attempted.

(a.) The quiescent letters, or so-called matres
lectionis, are supplied.*?

- (b.) The more poetical forms of the pronouns,
probably less known to the Sam. are altered into
the more common ones.'*

a For "nn!2'', " He will elect " (the spot), the Sam.

always puts *nn!Il, " He has elected " (namely, Geri-
rim). See below.

b D^nVtt? !2"* must be a misprint.

c Thus D*^ is found in the Samar. for D~ of the

Maaoretio T. ; HI for il*"; V for I"; DH^bM

for QnbW; mmStt for nVS^ etc.: some-

times a 1 is put even where the Heb. T. has, in ac-
cordance with the grammatical rules, only a short
vowel or a sheva : TDDIH is found for I'^SSH ;

ni''3is for nv3s.
d I3n3, Dn, bwn, become •lanaw, ni^n,

2806 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

(c.) The same propensity for completing appar-
ently incomplete forms is noticeable in the flexion
of the verbs. The apocopated or short future is
altered into the regular future."

((/.) On the other hand the paragogical letters 1

and "^ at the end of nouns, are almost universally
struck out by the Sam. corrector;^ and, in the igno-
rance of the existence of nouns of a common gender,
he has given them genders according to his fancy.^

(e.) The infin. absol. is, in the quaintest manner
possible, reduced to the form of the finite verb.<*

For obsolete or rare forms, the modern and more

a *T3JTl becomes T^^HI j HD***! is emendated
into niD"'*!; NH') (verb n"b) into nM")'' ; the
final ^~ of the 3d pets. fem. plur. fut. into 773,

6 ''3D1t27 is shortened into )DWf IH^n into

c Masculine are made the words DH • (Gen. xlix.
20), nVW (Dent. xv. 7, etc.), HlDn^ (Gen. xxxii.
9) ; feminine the words J^l^ (Gen. xiii. 6), ^"IT
(Deut. xxviii. 25), ICD3 (Gen. xlvi. 25, etc.) ; where-
ever the word "15?3 occurs in the sense of " girl," a
71 is added at the end (Gen. xxiv. 14, etc.).

d ^W^ "fibn 'initt?''^, " the waters returned
continually,'''' is transformed into II^vH "l^ltt?^*!
"^3ti7"1, " they returned, they went and they re-
turned " (Gen. viii. 3). Where the infin. is used as
an adverb, c. g. pmH (Gen. xxi. 16), '^far ofif," it
is altered into np"^mn, " she went far away,"
which renders the passage almost unintelligible.

« 0^15? for Dn*^3? (Gen. iii. 10, 11) ; lb"' for
ibl (xi. 30) ; 0*^115!^ for the collective TlD!^
(XV. 10) ; niDM, " female servants," for iTinXSS
(XX. 17) ; nnira ^^^ nniaXS «-l*'"l for the ad-
verbial n*)tO (xlix. 15); ^TV^'ID. for D'TI'^^Q
(Ex. xxvi. 26, making it depend from '^!$37) ; DC^D,
in the unusual sense of " from it " (comp. 1 K. xvii.
13;, is altered into n2?2p (Lev. ii. 2); TV^U

ig wrongly put for >n (3d p. s. m. of ^'^T^ = *&

"1^, the obsolete form, is replaced by the more recent
"1^^ (Num. xxi. 15) ; the unusual fem. termination
^ (comp. btD''!2M) b'^n'^DM, is elongated into
rV~-i inii? is the emendation for Ttt? (Deut.
xxii. 1) ; '^'nn for '^nnn (Deut. xxxiii. 15), etc.

/ ntt^MI U?*^M, "man and woman," used by
Gen. vii. 2 of animals, is changed into ni2p31 "IS^,
•* male and female ; '' VS3tt? (Gen. xxiv. 60), " his
haters," becomes V3i''*)M, "his enemies ; " for 7V2

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

common ones have been substituted in a great
number of places.^

2. The second class of variants consists of glosses
and interpretations received into the text: glosses,
moreover, in which the Sam. not unfrequently
coincides with the LXX., and which are in many
cases evidently derived by both from some ancient
Targum./

3. The third class exhibits conjectural emenda-
tions — sometimes far from happy — of real or im-
aginary difficulties in the Masoretic Text.??

4. The fourth class exhibits readings in which
apparent deficiencies have been corrected or sup-

(indefin.) is substituted HDISD 5 SI'', "he will
see, choose," is amplified by a 1v, " for himself; "
1|n nan is transformed into n*i:j> HUl^S "liH
(Lev. xvii. 10) ; D^bn b« 'nb« n'^^^ (Num.
xxiii. 4), " And God met Bileam," becomes with the
Sam. 'n n« b^S "JSbD «:^»">1, «and an
Angel of the Lord found Bileam ; " nti^SH "hV
(Gen. XX. 3), "for the woman," is amplified into
nti7Sn rniS b^?, "for the sake of the woman ; "
for ''l^^bl, from *TD3 (obsol., comp. 4XJ0), is P«t
"^IDD V, " those that are before me," in contradis-
tinction to " those who will come after me ; " "n^l^l,
" and she emptied " (her pitcher into the trough. Gen.
xxiv. 20), has made room for I^Tin*), " and she
took down ; " TVtliW *»m2?')D, " I will meet there "
(A. v., Ex. xxix. 43), is made QtZ? Tlti?n"T3, " I
shall be [searched] found there ; " Num. xxxi. 15,
before the words n^p3 bO Qn'^'^nn, "Have
you spared the life of every female?" a H^/,
"Why," is inserted (LXX.); for nin^ UW ''D
S'^pS (Deut. xxxii. 3), " If I call the name of Jeho-
vah," the Sam. has Dti?^, " In the name," etc.

g The elliptic use of 1 V^, frequent both in He-
brew and Arabic, being evidently unknown to the
emendator, he alters the "rb^)^ T\^W HN^S "^^bil
(Gen. xvii. 17), " shall a child be bom unto him that
is a hundred years old ? " into T"^ V*1S, " shall I be-
get ? " Gen. xxiv. 62, SIDtt SD, " he came from
going " (A. V. " from the way ") to the well of Lahai-
roi, the Sam. alters into 1!2lttn M3, "in or
through the desert " (LXX., fiia n^s ep^/mou). In Gen.
XXX. 34, "f^nmD ^TV lb ^n, "Behold, may
it be according to thy word," the lb (Arab. «J) is
transformed into Sb, " and if not — let it be like

thy word." Gen.xii.32,n*ibnn nSst^H \^\

T •

" And for that the dream was doubled," becomes
n iT'Stt? nb371, "The dream rose a second
time," which is both un-Hebrew, and diametrically
opposed to the sense and construction of the passage.
Better is the emendation Gen. xlix. 10, ^^SD

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

plied from parallel passages in the common text.
Gen. xviii. 29, 30, for '• I shall not do it," « "I
shall not destroy," *> is substituted from Gen. xviii.

28, 31, 32. Gen. xxxvii. 4, ITTM, " his brethren,"

is replaced by V3D, "his sons," from the former
verse. One of the most curious specimens of the
endeavors of the Samaritan Codex to render the
readings as smooth and consistent as possible, is

its uniform spelling of proper nouns like THiH"^,

Jethro, occasionally spelt ~ir"i"^ in the Hebrew text,
Moses' father-in law — a man who, according to
the Midrash (Si/ri), had no less than seven names;

37tt?"in'' (Jehoshua), into which form it corrects

the shorter ^ti^lH (Hoshea) when it occurs in
the Masoretic Codex. ISIore frequent still are the
additions of single words and short phrases in-
serted from pai-allel passages where the Hebrew
text appeared too concise:'" — unnecessary, often
excessively absurd interpolations.

5. The JiJ'th cLoss is an extension of the one im-
mediately preceding, and comprises larger phrases,
additions, and rejMititions from parallel passages.
Whenever anything is mentioned as having been
done or said previously by Closes, or where a com-
mand of God is rekted as being executed, the
whole speech bearing upon it is repeated agjvin at
full length. These tedious and always superfluous
rei)etition3 are most frequent in l-lxodus, both in
the record of the plagues and in the many interpo-
lations from Deuteronomy.

6. To the sixth class belong those "emendations"

V 75*^1 "from between his feet," into "from
among his banners," Vv^T ^**^D. Ex. xv.
18, all but five of the Sam. Codd. read Obl^^b
Tin, " for ever and longer,'''' instead of l^?*!, the
common form, "evermore." Ex. xxxiv. 7, np3^
n(?3^ M7, " that will by no means clear the sin,^^

becomes np3^ *! V npbli "and the innocent to
hitn shall be ianocent," agaiust both the parallel pas-
sages and the obvious sense. The somewhat difficult
J^DD^ Sbl, " and they did not cease " (A. V., Num.
xi. 25), reappears as a still more obscure conjectural
^DDS^ , which we would venture to translate, " they
were not gathered in," in the sense of " killed " : in-
stead of either the 1tC32M, " congregated," of the
Sam. Vers., or Castell's "continuerunt," or Houbigant's
and Bathe's " convenerant. " Num. xxi. 28, the ^V,
" Ar " (Moab), is emendated into 13?, " as far as,"

a perfectly meaningless reading ; only that the IV j
" city," as we saw above, was a word unknown to the
Sam. The somewhat uncommon words (Num. xi. 32),
nit^ti? Dnb iniOtr'^l, "and they (the people)
spread them all abroad," are transposed into
ntDinCt? Dnb ItSntC^I, "and they slaugh-
tered for themselves a slaughter." Deut. xxviii. 37
the word H^tt^Vj " ^^ astonishment " (A. V.), very
rarely used in this sense (Jer. xix. 8, xxv. 9), becomes
t2C277, " to a name," i. e. a bad name. Deut. xxxiii. 6,

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2807

of passages and words of the Hebrew text which
contain something objectionable in the eyes of the
Samaritans, on account either of historical improb-
ability or apparent want of dignity in the terms
applied to the Creator. Thus in the Sam. Pent,
no one in the antediluvian times begets his first
son after he has lived 150 years: but one hundred
years are, where necessary, subtracted before, and
added after the birth of the first son. Thus Jared,
according to the Hebrew Text, begat at 162 years,
lived afterwards 800 years, and " all his years were
962 years; " according to the Sam. he begot when
oidy 62 years old, lived afterwards 785 years, " and
all his years were 847." After the Deluge the
opposite method is followed. A hundred or fifty
years are added before and subtracted after the be-
getting: e. ff. Arphaxad, who in the Common Text
is 35 years old when he begets Shelah, and lived
afterwards 403 years : in all 438 — is by the Sam.
made 135 years old when he begets Shelah, and
lives only 303 years afterwards = 438. (The LXX»
has, according to its own peculiar psychological and
chronological notions, altered the Text in the op-
posite manner. [See Seitl'agint.]) An exceed-
ingly important and often discussed emendation of
this class is the passage in Ex. xii. 40, which in our
text reads, " Now the sojourning of the children of
Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and
thirty years." The Samaritan (supported by LXX.
Cod. Al.) has "the sojourning of the children of
Israel [ami their fatlitrs who dwell in the land of
Canaan and in the latid of Eyypt — iv yrj Alyvirra
Kul iv yfj Kavadv] was four hundred and thirty
years:" an interpolation of very late date indeed.

"ISDQ VriD '^n'^% " May his men be a multi-
tude," the Sam., with its characteristic aversion to, or
rather ignorance of, the use of poetical diction, reads
"HCDQ "irnS^ "'n'^l, " May there be from him a
multitude," thereby trying perhaps to encounter also
the apparent difficulty of the word "IDD^, standing
for " a great number." Anything more absurd than
the inSD in this place could hardly be imagined.
A few verses further on, the uncommon use of "JQ

in the phrase ]^D^p^ )p (Deut. xxxiii. 11), as
" lest," " not," caused the no less unfortunate altera-
tion !l3p"^|7^ ""Pj ^'^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ P^'^* of tlie pas-
sage, " smite* through the loins of them that rise
against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise
not again. ^^ becomes " who will raise them ? " — barren
alike of meaning and of poetry. For the unusual and

poetical ^SlSl (Deut. xxxiii. 25; A. V. "thy

strength "), "J''I3"^ is suggested ; a word about the
significance of which the commentators are at a
greater loss even than about that of the original.

c Thus in Gen. i. 15, the words 'hV T^Snb
\^*nMn, "to give light upon the earth," are inserted
from Ter. 17 ; Gen. xi. 8, the word vTiD^l, " and a
tower," is added from ver. 4 ; Gen. xxiv. 22, 73?

nCM, " on her lace " (nose), is added from ver. 47, so
that the former verse reads "And the man took
(np''"l for Dtt?*^"!) a golden ring ' upon her fece.' "

2808 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

Again, in Gen. ii. 2, » And God [ ? had] finished
(^S'^1,? pluperf.) on the seventh day," Nj^^^^jin
is altered into "^tt?!^?!, "the «a;C/<,"' lest God's
rest on the Sabbath-day might seem incomplete
(LXX.)- In Gen. xxix. 3, 8, "We cannot, until
all the flocks be gathered together, and till they
roll the stone from the mouth of the well,"

D'^'^l^, "flocks," is replaced by Q'^ril, "shep-
hei*ds," since the flocks could not roll the stone
from the well : the corrector not being apparently
aware that in common parlance in Hebrew, as in
other languages, "they" occasionally refers to cer-
tain not particularly specified persons. Well may
Gesenius ask what this corrector would have made
of Is. xxxvii. [not xxxvi.] 36 : "And when they arose
in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses."
The surpassing reverence of the Samaritan is
shown in passages hke Ex. xxiv. 10, " and they
beheld God," « which is transmuted into " and
they held by, clung to, God " ^ — a reading cer-
tainly less in harmony with the following — " and
they ate and drank."

7. The seventh class comprises what we might

c The gutturals and Ahevi-leitevs are frequently
changed : — tDT^H becomes t2"nM (Gen. viii. 4) ;
>SD is altered into >^n (xxiii. 18) ; U'D.W into
17Dli7 (xxvii. 19); "^bilT stands for "^briT (Deut. xxxii.
24) ; the H is changed into H in words like 2712
t3"^nn!l, which become 'iH^, D'^n2!l ; H is altered
into 37 — 1!2n becomes "1X35?. The •» is frequently
doubled (? as a mater lectionis) : D'^tO'^TT is substi-
tuted for S'^tDM ; «-l^*^W for Sn'^S ; '^"'D for >«:.

Many words are joined together : — TjlTI^ stands
for mm -)^ (Ex. XXX. 23) ; ISaHD for "jS "jnD
(Gen. xli. 45) ; D'^n^ "IH is always D'^naiH.
The pronouns PlS and I^IS, 2d p. fem. sing, and
plur., are changed into TIM, ^'^HS (the obso-
lete Heb. forms) respectively ; the sufF. tT into ^M :
"T" into "^"^ ; the termination of the 2d p. s. fem
praet. T^~, becomes ^J^, like the first p. ; the verbal
form Aphel is used for the Hiphil; TllDtM for
>n"lD^n ; the medial letter of the yerb *1 37 is
sometimes retained as S or "^^ instead of being dropped
as in the Heb. Again, verbs of the form H V have
the ^ frequently at the end of the infin. fut. and part.,
instead of the H. Nouns of the schema V^p
(b^M, etc.) are often spelt v'^^p, into which the
form /"^t^D is likewise occasionally transformed.
Of distinctly Samaritan words may be mentioned:
"in (Gen. xxxiv. 81) = '7'^W, ""[^Tl (Chald.) « like ; "
D'^nn, for Heb. UTViH, "seal;" HmbS,
' "as though it budded," becomes niin&SD == Targ.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

briefly call Samaritanisms, i. e. certain Hebrew
forms translated into the idiomatic Samaritan;
and here the Sam. Codices vary considerably
among themselves, — as far as the very imperfect
collation of them has hitherto shown — some hav-
ing retained the Hebrew in many places where the
others have adopted the new equivalents.'^

8. The eiyhth and last class contains alterations
made in favor or on behalf of Samaritan theology,
hermeneutics and domestic worship. Thus the
word Klohim, four times construed with the plural
verb in the Hebrew Pentateuch, is in the Sam-
aritan Pent, joined to the singular verb (Gen. xx.
13, xxxi. 53, XXXV. 7; Ex. xxii. 9); and further,
both anthropomorphisms as well as anthropopath-
isms are carefully expunged — a practice very com-
mon in later times.^ The last and perhaps the
most momentous of all intentional alterations is

the constant change of all the in^*', " God will
choose a spot," into in!3, " He has chosen,"
namely, Gerizim, and the well known substitution
of Gerizim for Ebal in Deut. xxvii. 4 : "It shall
be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set

nnnCS 12; D^n, "wise," reads DiDn ;

IV, "spoil," ^iv; ni!2^ "days," n^v.

f^ nDHv^ Lt^'^S, "man of war," an expression

used of God (Ex. xv. 3), becomes X3 "nimi, " hero of
war," the former apparently of irreverent import to
the Samaritan ear ; for H r|S 7tt737^ (Deut. xxix.
19, A. V. 20), lit. "And the wrath (nose) of the Lord
shall smoke," Jl ?]M "^n"^, " the wrath of the Lord

will be kindled," is substituted ; '^bbin!^ Tl!5
(Deut. xxxii. 18), "the rock (God) which begat thee,"
is changed into '^\r)T112 *Tl!?, "the rock which

glorifies thee ; " Gen. xix. 12, D"^tt7DSn, " the men,"
used of " the angels," has been replaced by
D"^2S7Dn, "the angels." Extreme reverence
for the patriarchs changed "I'llS, "Cursed be

their (Simeon and Levi's) anger," into T^TM,
" brilliant is their anger " (Gen. xlix. 7). A flagrant
falsification is the alteration, in an opposite sense,

which they ventured in the passage ^Dli7*^ H T^T^

nCD^b, "The beloved of God [Benjamin, the
founder of the Judaeo-Davidian empire, hateful to
the Samaritans] shall dwell securely," transformed
by them into the almost senseless H "7^ *T*'
ntOnb "J3tt7**, " The hand, the hand of God will

rest [if Hiph. : "jStT^, ' will cause to rest '] securely "
(Deut. xxxiii. 12). Reverence for the Law and the
Sacred Records gives rise to more emendations : —
'l"'tt7:n!:D (Deut. XXV. 12, A. V. 11), "by his secrets,"'
becomes *nti72n, "by his flesh;" nDb^ltC'^,
" coibit cum ea ; " (Deut. xxviii. 30), T112V DDt27"^,

" concumbet cum ea ; " "jID'^bti^n ^b^b, " to the
dog shall ye throw it" (Ex. xxii. 30) (A. V. 31),
'btt^n "fbli^n, "ye shall indeed throw it
[away]."

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

up these stones which I command you this day on
Mount Kbal (Sam. Geriziin), and there shalt thou
build an altar unto the Lord thy God," etc. This
passage gains a certain interest from Whiston and
Kennicott having charged the Jews with corrupt-
ing it from Gerizim into Ebal. This supposition,
however, was met by Rutherford, Parry, I'ychsen,
Lobstein, Verschuir, and others, and we need only
add that it is completely given up by modern Bib-
lical scholars, although it cannot be denied that
there is some pnnui facie ground for a doubt
upon the subject. To this class also belong more
especially interpolations of really existing pas-
sages, dragged out of their context for a sjjecial
purpose. In Exodus as well as in Deuteronomy
the Sam. has, immediately after the Ten Com-
mandments, the following insertions from Deut.
xxvii. 2-7 and xi. 30: "And it shall be on the
day when ye shall pass over .Jordan ... ye shall
set up these stones ... on Mount Gerizim . . .
and there shalt thou build an altar . . . ^That
mountain ' on the other side Jordan by the way
where the sun goeth down ... in the champaign
over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh,
» over ayainst Skechcm: ' " — this last superfluous
addition, which is also found in Deut. xi. 30 of the
Sam. Pent., being ridiculed in the Tahnud, as we
have seen above.

From the immense immber of these worse than
worthless variants Ge.senius has singled out four,
which he thinks preferable on the whole to those
of the Masoretic Text. We will confine ourselves
to mentioning them, and refer the reiuler to the
recent commentaries upon them : he will find that
they too have since been, all but unanimously,
rejected." (1.) After the words, " And Cain spoke

(IDWI) to his brother Abel " (Gen. iv. 8), the
Sam. adds, " let us go into the field," ^ in ignorance

of the absolute use of *n?3M, "to say, speak"
(comp. Ex. xix. 25; 2 Chr. ii. 10 (A. V. 11)), and
the absol. i:!"*"! (Gen. ix. 22). (2.) For "inS

(Gen. xxii. 13) the Sam. reads *7nS, i. e. instead
of "behind him a ram," '■'■one ram." (3.) For
Dn:i niDn (Gen. xlix. 14), " an ass of bone,"
i. e. a strong ass, the Sam. has 0*^*^3 "T^tSH
(Targ. an?, Syr. pi>;^- And (4.) for p")*""!
(Gen. xiv. 14), "he led forth his trained ser-
vants," the Sam. reads pT^% " he numbered."
We must briefly state, in concluding this por-

a Keil, in the latest edition of his Introd., p. 590,
note 7, says, " Even the few variants, which Gesenius
tries to prove genuine. Ml to the ground on closer
examination."

c E. g. nnpn for nip*" (ex. xo. 48) ; sn*^

TlW^'y (Ex. XXXV. 10).

^ E. g. *n2T for niDT (Ex. xiii. 13) ; 1^3"!
for D13") (Num. xv. 35).

e E. g. Pjin*} for Pinrri (Oen. viii. 22) ; ^"111

for yi57 (Gen. xxxvi. 28); ^Wtt7n for ?)ntt7n
(Ley. xi, 16), &c.

177

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2809

tion of the subject, that we did not choose this
classification of Gesenius because it appeared to us
to be either systematic (Gesenius says himself:
" Ceterum facile perspicitur complures in his esse
lectiones quarum singulas alius ad aliud genus
referre forsitan malit .... in una vel altera
lectione ad aliam classera referenda baud difiiciles
erimus . . . . ") or exhaustive, or even be-
cause the illustrations themselves are unassailable
in point of the reason he assigns for them; but
because, deficient as it is, it has at once and for-
ever silenced the utterly unfounded though time-
hallowed claims of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It
was only necessary, as we said before, to collect a
great number of variations (or to take them from
Walton), to compare them with the old text and
with each other, to place them in some kind of
order before the reader and let them tell their own
tale. That this was not done during the two
hundred years of the contest by a single one of the
combatants is certainly rather strange: albeit uot
the only instance of the kind.

Important additions to this list have, as we
hinted l)efore, been made by Frankel, such as the
Samaritans' preference of the imjjerat. for the 3d
pers. ; *^ ignorance of the use of the abl. absol. ; <^
Galileanisms, — to which also belongs the permu-
tation of the letters Alievi^ (comp. Ei^b. p. 53,

"!Dn, HDS, "1^3?), in the Samaritan Cod. ; the

occasional softening down of the D into 2,/ of 3

into n, !? into T, etc., and chiefly the presence
of words and phrases in the Sam. which are not
inter[)olated from parallel passages, but are entirely
wanting in our text.^ Frankel derives from these
passages chiefly the conclusion that the Sam.
Pent, was, partly at least, emendated from the
LXX., Onkelos, and other very late sources. (See
below. )

We now subjoin, for the sake of completeness,
the beforementioned thirteen classes of Kirchheim,
in the original, to which we have added the trans-
lation : —

1. Dnnn nn nbr ab u^'^x^w^ niDDin.

[Additions and alterations in the Samaritan Pen-
tateuch in favor of Mount Gerizim.]

2. msbttb niCDin. [Additions for the
purpose of completion.]

3. TiMi. [Commentary, glosses,]

4. n^2^3nni D'^b^on ?)ibn. [Change

of verbs and moods.]

/ w'2W^ for xD^rv>^ (Qen.xxxi.35); mwi

for nDti73 (Ex. XV. 10).

9 Gen. xxiii. 2, after J^^nSn /T^lpS the
words pttV vS are added ; xxvii. 27, after mtt^H
the word NbX3 is found (LXX.); "xliii. 28, the phrase
D>nb«b Sinn IZ^'^Wn -fnn is inserted after
the Ethnach; xlvii. 21, D'^lD^b T^237n, and

Ex. xxxii. 32, ^w cn sr^sn s:rn ns is read.

An exceedingly difficult and un-Hebrew passage is
found in Ex. xxiii, 19, reading nSt TIW^ ^"D

np^"* ''nbsb sin nnnri xi'dw nntD.

2810 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

5. mDtt7n F)*)bn. [change of nouns.]

6. nWltl^n. [Emendation of seeming irreg-
ularities by assimilating forms, etc.]

7. nVmSn nmnn. [Permutation of
letters.]

8. D'^'^ISD. [Pronouns.]

9. V^- [Gender.]

10. niDD13n nVniW. [Letters added.]

11. DnTT nVniM. [Addition of preposi-
tions, conjunctions, articles, etc.]

12. TT^SI V'^^P* [Junction of separated,
and separation of joined words.]

13. Ob"!!? n^D"^' [Chronological alterations.]
It may, perhaps, not be quite superfluous to ob-
serve, before we proceed any further, that, since
up to this moment no critical edition of the Sam.
Pent., or even an examination of the Codices since
Kennicott — who can only be said to have begun
the work — has been thought of, the treatment of
the whole subject remains a most precarious task,
and beset with unexampled difficulties at every
step; and also that, under these circumstances, a
more or less scientific arrangement of isolated or
common Samaritan mistakes and falsifications ap-
pears to us to be a subject of very small conse-
quence indeed.

It is, however, this same rudimentary state of
investigation — after two centuries and a half of
fierce discussion — which has left the other and
much more important question of the A(je and
Origin of the Sam. Pent, as unsettled to-day as it
was when it first came under the notice of Eu-
ropean scholars. For our own part we cannot but
think that as long as (1) the history of the
Samaritans remains involved in the obscurities of
which a former article will have given an account;
(2) we are restricted to a small number of com-
paratively recent Codices; (3) neither these Codices
themselves have, as has just been observed, been
thoroughly collated and recollated, nor (4) more
than a feeble beginning has been made with any-
thing like a collation between the various readings
of the Sam. Pent, and the LXX. (Walton omitted
the greatest number, "cum nuUam sensus varie-
tatem constituant " ) ; so long must we have a
variety of the most divergent opinions, all based
on "probabilities," which are designated on the
other side as "false reasonings" and "individual
crotchets," and which, moreover, not unfrequently
start from flagrantly false premises.

We shall, under these circumstances, confine
ourselves to a simple enumeration of the leading

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

the n

opinions, and the chief reasons and arguments
leged for and against them : —

(1.) The Samaritan Pentateuch came into the
hands of the Samaritans as an inheritance from
the ten tribes whom they succeeded — so the pop-
ular notion runs. Of this opinion are J. Morinus,
Walton, Cappellus, Kennicott, Michaelis, Eichhorn,
Bauer, Jahn, Bertholdt, Steudel, IVIazade, Stuart,
Davidson, and others. Their reasons for it may be
thus briefly summed up : —

(n.) It seems improbable that the Samaritans
should have accepted their code at the hands of the
Jews after the exile, as supposed by some critics,
since there existed an intense hatred between the
two nationalities.

(b.) The Samaritan Canon has only the Penta-
teuch in common with the Hebrew Canon: had
that book been received at a period when the Ha-
giographa and the Prophets were in the Jews'
hands, it would be surprising if they had not also
received those.

(c.) The Sam. letters, avowedly the more an-
cient, are found in the Sam. Cod. : therefore it was
written before the alteration of the character into
the square Hebrew — which dates from the end of
the Exile — took place.

[We cannot omit briefly to draw attention here
to a most keen-eyed suggestion of S. D. Luzzatto,
contained in a letter to R. Kirchheim (Carme
Shomron, p. 106, &c.). by the adoption of which
many readings in the Heb. Codex, now almost un-
intelligible, appear perfectly clear. He assumes
that the copyist who at some time or other after
Ezra transcribed the Bible into the modern square
Hebrew character, from the ancient copies written
in so-called Samaritan, occasionally mistook Samar-
itan letters of similar form." And since our Sara.
Pent, has those difficult readings in common with
the Mas. Text, that other moot point, whether it
was copied from a Hebrew or Samaritan Codex,
would thus appear to be solved. Its constant

changes of ^ and 1, "^ and 1, H and H — let-
ters which are similar in Hebrew, but not in Sa-
maritan — have been long used as a powerful argu-
ment for the Samaritans having received the" Pent,
at a very late period indeed.]

Since the above opinion — that the Pent, came
into the hands of the Samaritans from the Ten
Tribes — is the most popular one, we will now
adduce some of the chief reasons brought against
it, and the reader will see by the somewhat fee-
ble nature of the arguments on either side, that
the last word has not yet been spoken in the mat-
ter.

(rt.) There existed no religious animosity what-
soever between Judah and Israel when they sep-
arated. The ten tribes could not therefore have

■

o E. g. Is. xi. 15, U^Vn instead of D^^D
(adopted by Gesenius in Thes. p. 1017 a, without a
mention of its source, which he, however, distinctly

avowed to Rosenmiiller — comp. W D, p. 107, note
S) ; Jer. iii. 8, S"lS"1 instead of W"im ; 1 Sam.
xxiv. 11, Onm for Dn«1 ; Ezr. vi. 4, HIil

for Sin ; Ez- xxii. 20, \nn2m for Nnnsm ;

Judg. XV. 20, D*^"1C7V — Samson's reign during the
time of the Philistines being given as tiventy years

instead of forty (comp. Jer. Sota, 1), accounted for
by the Q (numerical letter for forty) in the original

being mistaken for D (twenty). Again, 2 Chr. xxii.
2, forty is put instead of twenty (comp. 2 K. viil. 26) ;
2 K. xxii. 4, DH'^I for 'fn^l ; Ez. iii. 12, "[l^n
for DT13, etc. ; all these letters — (Jj and "^^

^ and i\, a'^*! Oj "^ and ^ — resemblic
each other very closely.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

bequeathed such an animosity to those who suc-
ceeded them, and wiio, we may add, probably cared
as little orii^inally for the disputes between Judah
and Israel, as colonists from far-off countries, be-
longinj; to utterly different races, are likely to care
for the quarrels of the aborij;ines who formerly in-
habited the country. On the contrary, the contest
between the slowly judaized Samaritans and the
Jews only dates from the moment when the latter
refused to recognize the claims of the former, of
belonging to the people of God, and rejected their
aid in building the Temple: why then, it is said,
should they not first have received the one book
which would bring them into still closer conformity
with the returned exiles, at their hands ? That the
Jews should yet have refused to receive them as
equals is no more surprising than that the Samari-
tans from that time forward took their stand ui)on
this very Law — altered according to their circum-
stances; and proved from it that they and they
alone were the Jews Kar e'lox^".

(h.) Their not possessing any other book of the
Hebrew (.'anon is not to be accounted for by the
circumstance that there was no other book in exist-
ence at the time of the schism, because many
psalms of David, writings of Solomon, etc., nmst
have been circulating among the people. IJut the
jealousy with which the Samaritans regarded Jeru-
salem, and the intense hatred which they naturally
conceived against the post-Mosaic writers of na-
tional .lewish history, would sutKcientiy account for
their rejecting the other books, in all of which, save
Joshua, Judges, and Job, either Jerusalem, as the
centre of worship, or David and his House, are
extolled. If, however, Ix)ewe has really found with
them, as he rej)ort8 in the Aflyem. Zntuny d.
Jmknth. April 18th, 1839, our Book of Kings and
Solomon's Song of Songs, — which they certainly
would not have received subsequently, — all these
arguments are perfectly gratuitous.

(c.) The present Hebrew character was iiot in-
troduced by I'Mi-Jk after the return frotn the Exile,
but came into use at a much later j>eriod. The
Samaritans might therefore have received the Pen-
tateuch at the hands of the returned exiles, who,
according to the Talmud, afterwards changed their
writing, and in the Pentateuch only, so ag to dis-
tinguish it from the Samaritan. " Originally,"
says Mar Sutra {San/iedr. xxi. b), "the Pentateuch
was given to Israel in Jbri writing and the Holy
(Hebrew) language: it was again given to them
in the days of Ezra in the Ashurilh writing and
Aramaic language. Israel then selected the Ash-
urith writing and the Holy language, and left to
the Hediot^s ('iStwrot) the Ibri writing and the
Aramaic language. Who are the Hediotes V The
Cuthim (Samaritans). What is Ibri writing?
The Libonaah (Samaritan)." It is well known
also that the Maccabean coins bear Samaritan in-
scriptions: so that " Hediotes " would point to the
common use of the Samaritan character for ordi-
nary purposes, down to a very late period.

(2.) The second leading opinion on the age and
origin of the Sam. Pent, is that it was introduced
by Manasseh (comp. Josephus, Ant. xi. 8, §§ 2, 4)
at the time of the foundation of the Samaritan
Sanctuary on Mount Gerizim (Ant. van Dale, R.
Simon, Prideaux, Fulda, Hasse, De W^ette, Gese-
nius, Hupfeld, Hengstenberg, Keil, etc.). In sup-
port of this opinion are alleged, the idolatry of the
Samaritans before they received a Jewish priest
through Esarhaddon (2 K. xvii. 24-33), and the

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2811

immense number of readings common to the LXX.
and this Code, against the Masoretic Text.

(3.) Other, but very isolated notions, are those
of Morin, Le Clerc, Poncet, etc., that the Israelit-
ish priest sent by the king of Assyria to instruct
the new inhabitants in the religion of the country
brought the Pentateuch with him. Further, that
the Samaritan Pentateuch was the production of

an impostor, Dositheus C^St^DIT in Talmud), who
lived during the time of the Apostles, and who fal-
sified the sacred records in order to prove that he
was the Messiah (Ussher). Against which there
is only this to be observed, that there is not the
slightest alteration of such a nature to be found.
Finally, that it is a very late and faulty recension,
with additions and corruptions of the Masoretic
Text (6th century after Christ), into which glosses
from the LXX. had been received (Frankel). Many
other suggestions have been made, but we cannot
here dwell upon them : suffice it to have mentioned
those to which a certain popularity and authority
attaches.

Another question has been raised: Have all
the variants which we find in our copies been in-
troduced at once, or are they the work of many
generations ? From the number of vague opinions
on that point, we have only room here to adduce
that of Azariah de Rossi, who traces many of the
glosses (Class 2) both in the Satn. and in the LXX.
to an ancient Targum in the hands of the people
at the time of Ezra, and refers to the Talmudical
passage of Nedar. 37 : " .\nd he read in the Book
of the Ljiw of God — this is Mihra, the Pentateuch;

w27mSQ, explanatory, this is Targum^ [Ver-
sions (Takgum).] Considering that no Masorah
fixed the letters and signs of the Samar. Codex,
and that, as we have noticed, the principal object
was to make it read as smoothly as possible, it is
not easily seen why each succeeding century should
not have added its own emendations. But here,
too, investigation still wanders about in the mazes
of speculation.

The chief opinions with respect to the agreement
of the numerous and as yet uninvestigated — even
uncounted — readings of the LXX. (of which like-
wise no critical edition exists as yet), and the Sam.
Pent, are : —

1. That the LXX. have translated from the
Sam. (De Dieu, Selden, Hottinger, Hasseucamp,
Eichhorn, etc.).

2. That mutual interpolations have taken place
(Grotius, Ussher, Ravius, etc.).

3. That both Versions were formed from Hebrew
Codices, which differed among themselves as well
as from the one which afterwards obtained public
authority in Palestine; that however very many
willful corruptions and interpolations have ci^ept in
in later times (Gesenius).

4. That the Samar. has, in the main, been al-
tered from the LXX. (Frankel).

It must, on the other hand, be stated also, that
the Sam, and LXX. quite as often disagree with
each other, and follow each the Masor. Text. Also,
that the quotations in the N. T. from the LXX.,
where they coincide with the Sam. against the
Hebr. Text, are so small in number and of so un-
important a nature that they cannot be adduced as
any argument whatsoever.

The following is a list of the MSS. of the Sam.
Pent, now in European libraries [Kennicott] : —

2812 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

No. 1. Oxford (Ussher) Jiodl., fol., No. 3127.
Perfect, except the first twenty and last nine verses.

No. 2. Oxford (Ussher) IJodl., 4to, No. 3128,
with an Arabic version in Sam. characters. Imper-
fect. Wanting the whole of Leviticus and many
portions of the other books.

No. 3. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., 4to, No. 3129.
Wanting many portions in each book.

No. 4. Oxford (Ussher, Laud) Bodl., 4to, No.
624. Defective in parts of Deut.

No. 5. Oxford (Marsh) Bodl., 12mo, No. 15.
Wanting some verses in the beginning; 21 chapters
obliterated.

No. 6. Oxford (Pocock) Bodl.,24mo, No. 5328.
Parts of leaves lost; otherwise perfect.

No. 7. London (Ussher) Br. Mus. Claud. B. 8.
Vellum. Complete. 254 leaves.

No. 8. Paris (Peiresc) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 1.
Recent MS., containing the Hebr. and Sam. Texts,
with an Arab. Vers, in the Sam. character. Want-
ing the first 34 cc, and very defective in many
places.

No. 9. Paris (Peiresc) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 2.
Ancient MS., wanting first 17 chapters of Gen.;
and all Deut. from the 7th ch. Houbigant, how-
ever, quotes from Gen. x. 11 of this Codex, a rather
puzzling circumstance.

No. 10. Paris (Harl. de Sancy) Oratory, No. 1.
The famous MS. of P. della Valle.

No. 11. Paris (Dom. Nolin) Oratory, No. 2.
Made-up copy.

No. 12. Paris (Libr. St. Gen^v.). Of little
value.

No. 13. Rome (Peir. and Barber.) Vatican, No.
106. Hebr. and Sam. texts, with Arab. Vers, in
Sam. character. Very defective and recent. Dated
the 7th century (?).

No. 14. Rome (Card. Cobellutius), Vatican.
Also supposed to be of the 7th century, but very
doubtful.

No. 15. Milan (Ambrosian Libr.). Said to be
very ancient; not collated.

No. 16. Leyden (Golius MS.), fol., No. 1. Said
to be complete.

No. 17. Gotha (Ducal Libr.). A fragment only.

No. 18. London, Count of Paris' Library. With
Version.

Printed editions are contained in the Paris and
Walton Polyglots ; and a separate reprint from the
latter was made by Blayney, Oxford, 1790. A
Facsimile of the 20th ch. of Exodus, from one of
the Nablus MSS., has been edited, with portions
of the corresponding Masoretic text, and a Russian
Translation and Introduction, by Levysohn, Jeru-
salem, 1860.«

II. Versions.
1. Samaritan. — The origin, author, and age of
the Samaritan Version of the Five Books of Moses,
has hitherto — so Eichhorn quaintly observes —
" always been a golden apple to the investigators,
and will very probably remain so, until people leave
off venturing decisive judgments upon historical
subjects which no one has recorded in antiquity."
And, indeed, modern investigators, keen as they
have been, have done little towards the elucidation

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

of the subject. According to the Samaritans them-
selves (De Sacy, Mem. 3; Paulus; Winer), their
high-priest Nathaniel, who died about 20 b. c, is
its author. Gesenius puts its date a few years after
Christ. JuynboU thinks that it had long been in
use in the second post-Christian century. Frankel
places it in the post -Mohammedan time. Other in-
vestigators date it from the time of Esarhaddon's
priest (Schwarz), or either shortly before or after
the foundation of the temple on Mount Gerizim.
It seems certain, however, that it was composed
before the destruction of the second temple ; and
being intended, like the Targums, for the use of the
people exclusively, it was written in the popular
Samaritan idiom, a mixture of Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Syriac.

In this version the original has been followed,
with a very few exceptions, in a slavish and some-
times perfectly childish manner, the sense evidently
being of minor consideration. As a very striking
instance of this may be adduced the translation of

Deut. iii. 9: " The Zidonians call Hermon 'j^'^tt?

(Shirion), and the Amorites call it ")>D^7 (Shenir)."

The translator deriving 'J'^'^ti? from Htt? "prince,

master," renders it )'DD " masters; " and finding
the letters reversed in the appellation of the Amor-
ites as T^3ti7, reverses also the sense in his ver-
sion, and translates it by "slaves" ^"n^^li^D!
In other cases, where no Samaritan equivalent
could be found for a Hebrew word, the translator,
instead of paraphrasing it, simply transposes its
letters, so as to make it look Samaritan. Occa-
sionally he is misled by the orthography of the;

original: t S12W p DS, "If so, where ...?'»

he renders nT2"1S p DS, "If so, I shall be

wrath:" mistaking M12S for ISM, from ^S
" anger." On the whole it may be considered a
very valuable aid towards the study of the Samar.
Text, on account of its very close verbal adherence.
A few cases, however, may be brought forward,
where the Version has departed from the' Text,
either under the influence of popular religious no-
tions, or for the sake of explanation. " We pray"
— so they write to Scaliger — " every day in the
morning and in the evening, as it is said, the one
lamb shalt thou prepare in the morning and the
second in the evening ; we bow to the ground and
worship God." Accordingly, we find the translator
rendering the passage, " And Isaac went to * walk '

(n*lti7v) in the field," by — "and Isaac went to

pray (nwb^JDb) in the field." "And Abraham

rose in the morning ("^plH^)," is rendered "* v!^l3,
" in the prayer," etc. Anthropomorphisms are
avoided. " The image (n^l^n) of God " is

rendered iltt'^173, "the glory." 71^'^'^ '^5,
" The mouth of Jehovah,' ' is transformed into
nin"^ "ItS'^D, "the word of Jehovah." For

« The original intention of the Russian Government
to publish the wliole Codex in the same niannor seems
to have been given up for the present. We can only
hope that, if the work is ever taken up again, it will
fall into more competent hands. Mr. Levysohn's In-

troduction, brief as it is, shows him to be utterly
wanting both in scholarship and in critical acumen,
and to be, moreover, entirely unacquainted with the
fact that his new discoveries have been disposed of
some hundred and fifty years since.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

D'^nbW, « God," n^DWbtt, » Angel," is fre-
quently found, etc. A great ditficulty is offered by
the proper names whicli this version often substi-

Onkelos iu Polyglott. Num.

snns IS -122 iinb -ia\-n bsia?^ *^3n
Dip -iTnb N-i"^TD -113 -n^b ti;nD"' ns
bn HT*' x^^ry^^ mn nnn^ : mn*^
\nu?'^ «b p^Tir n»n-r bm mn nnm

.biD^^ sb vii^'2^'1 r^'^""

But no safe conclusion as to the respective rela-
tion of the two versions can be drawn from this.

This Version has likewise, in passing through
the hands of copyists and commentators, suffered
many interpolations and corruptions. The first
copy of it was brought to Europe by De la Valle,
together with the Sam. Text, in 1U16. Job. Ne-
drinus first published it together with a faulty I^tin
translation in the Paris Polyglott, whence it was,
with a few emendations, reprinted in Walton, with
some notes by Castellus. Single portions of it
appeared in Halle, ed. by Cellarius, 1705, and by
Uhlemann, Leipz., 1837. Compare Cesenius, De
Pent. Sam. Oiif/ine, etc., and Winer's monograph,
De Versmds Pent. Sam. Itidule, etc., Leipzig,
1817.

2. Th 1afiapeiriK6v. The hatred between the
Samaritans and the Jews is supjiosed to have caused
the former to prepare a Greek translation of their
Pent, in opposition to the LXX. of the Jews. In
this way at least the existence of certain fragments
of a Greek Version of the Sam. Pent., preserved in
some MSS. of the LXX., together with portions of
Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, etc., is accounted

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2813

tutes, they being, in many cases, less intelligible
than the original ones." The similarity it has with
Onkelos occasionally amounts to complete identity,
for instance —

vi. 1, 2. Sam. Vers, iu Barberini Triglott.

nr bbD : na-^Db ^{w^'n cr mn^ bbDi
nns i« -ina pnb iri\"m bsna?^ -^^n
n-iT2ni2b -T^T3 ma -i-r^b wn^"^ id

r^\^w ni^ brji ^rw^ «b ranm ^1:r^^
X'W^'2^^ ^•^n'^i:)-! r^a^i nrw^ sb ]^n23?

.b^-^^ sb

for. These fragments are supposed to be alluded to
by the Greek Fathers under the name ^a/xapei-
riK6v. It is doubtful, however, whether it ever ex-
isted (as Gesenius, Winer, Juynboll, suppose) in
the shape of a complete translation, or only desig-
nated (as Castellus, Voss, Herbst, hold) a certain
number of scholia translated from the Sam. Version.
Other critics again (Hiivernick, Hengstenberg, etc.)
see in it only a corrected edition of certain passages
of the LXX.

3. In 1070 an Arabic Version of the Sam. Pent,
was made by Abu Said in Egypt, on the basis of
the Arabic translation of Saadjah haggaon. Like
the original Samaritan it avoids anthropomorph-
isms and anthropopathisms, replacing the latter
by euphemisms, besides occasionally making some
slight alterations, more especially in proper nouns.
It is extant in several MS. copies in European
libraries, ajid is now in course of being edited by
Kuenen, Leyden, 1850-54, &c. It appears to have
been drawn up from the Sam. Text, not from the
Sam. Version; the Hebrew words occasionally
remaining unaltered in the translation.'' Often
also it renders the original differently from the

a A list of the more remarkable of these, in the
case of geographical names, is subjoined : —

Gen. viii. 4, for Ararat, Sarendib, n^"T2nD.

X. 10, » Shinar, Tsofiih, HDI!^ (? Zobah).

11, i< Asshur, Astun, ptSD^T.

— u Rehoboth, Satcan, ^DtDD (? Sit-

tacene).

— « Calah, Laksah, JlOpb.

12, « Resen, Asfah, (120^.
30, u Mesha, Mesbal, b^DD,

xi. 9, «4 Babel, Lilak, pb'^b.

xiii. 3, « Ai, Cefrab, mD3 (? Cephirah,

Josh. ix. 17).
xiv. 5, " Ashteroth Karnaim, Afinith Kamiah,

— u Ham, Lishah, nti7'^b,

— 6, " El Paran, Pelishah, etc., D"1"1D

aibsb n*wi?bD.

— 14, i' Dan, Banias, DS'^3n.

— 15, » Hobah, Fogah, n^^lD.

— 17, » Shaveh, Mifueh, n2DD.

Gen. XV. 18, for Euphrates, Shalmah, nS^bt27.

— 20, I' Rephaim, Chasah, nSDIl.
XX. 1, u Qerar, Askelun, "|lbpD37.

xxvi. 2, u Mitsraim, Nefik, p'^S3 (? Exodus).
xxxvi.8,9,&c.«. Seir, Gablah, Tlb^a (Jebal).

37, « Rehoboth, Fathi, TlQ,
Num.xxi.33, u Bashan,Bathnin, ]"'3n!2(Batan8ea).

xxxiv. 10, " Shepham, 'Abamiab,^"^^2V(Apa-
msea).
11, a Shepham, 'Afiuniah, n^DD37.
Deut. ii. 9, » Ar ("l^?), Arshah, ntt^HS.

iu. 4, u Argob, Rigobaah, nSS^a**") (Po-
ya/Sa).

— 17, i« Chinnereth, Genesar, -1D33.

iT.48, » Sion, Tur Telga, Sabil "l*ltO (Je-

bel et Telj).

h E. g. Ex. xiii. 12, nm "lt:)D bD (Sam. Ver.

nm "^niriQ b^) remains Jo Li J^: xxi. 3,

niCS bVn (Sam. Ver. nilS inDD) is given

1^1 JjU.

2814 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

Samar. Version." Principally noticeable is its
excessive dread of assigning to God anything
like human attributes, physical or mental. For

DTlbM ^\^'^'^, » God," we find (as in Saadiah

sometimes) iuJ\ CJ^^, "the Angel of God; "

for "the eyes of God" we have (Deut. xi. 12)

adJt &ia&.^, "the Beholding of God."

For "Bread of God," aVjI, "the necessary,"

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

etc. Again, it occasionally adds honorable epithets
where the Scripture seems to have omitted them,
etc. Its language is far from elegant or even cor-
rect; and its use must likewise be confined to the
critical study of the Sam. Text.

4. To this Arabic version Abu Barachat, a
Syrian, wrote in 1208 a somewhat paraphrastic
commentary, which has by degrees come to be
looked upon as a new Version — the Syriac, in
contradistinction to the Arabic, and which is
often confounded with it in the MSS. On both
Kecensions see Eichhorn, Gesenius, Juynboll, etc.

III. Samaritan Literaturk.

It may perhaps not be superfluous to add here
a concise account of the Samaritan Uterature in
general, since to a certain degree it bears upon our
subject.

1. Chronicon Samantanum. — Of the Penta-
teuch and its Versions we have spoken. We have
also mentioned that the Samaritans have no other
book of our Received Canon. " There is no
Prophet but Moses" is one of their chief dogmas,
and fierce are the invectives in which they indulge
against men like Samuel, "a Magician and an In-
fidel," yiS'^ (Chron.Sam.); EU; Solomon, " Shi-

loh" (Gen. xlix. 10), "f. e. the man who shall
Sjpoil the Law and whom many nations will follow
because of their own licentiousness" (De Sacy,
Mem. 4); Ezra "cursed for ever" (Lett, to Hun-
tington, etc.). Joshua alone, partly on account of
his being an Ephraimite, partly because Shechem
was selected by him as the scene of his solemn
valedictory address, seems to have found favor in
their eyes ; but the Book of Joshua, which they
perhaps possessed in its original form, gradually
came to form only the groundwork of a fictitious
national Samaritan history, overgrown with the
most fantastic and anachronistic legends. This
is the so-called " Samaritan Joshua," or Chroni-
con Samaritanum /i.i«J . .O * f'- 7 ^ ■ ^A jm\

sent to Scaliger by the Samaritans of Cairo in 1584.
It was edited by Juynboll (Leyden, 1848), and his
acute investigations have shown that it was redacted
into its present form about A. i>. 1300, out of four
special documents, three of which were Arabic and
one Hebrew {i. e. Samaritan). The Leyden MS.
in 2 pts., which Gesenius, De Sam. Theol. p. 8, n.
18, thinks unique, is dated A. h. 764-919 (a. d.
1362-1513); — the Cod. in the Brit. Museum,

a Thus ni'^r, Gen. xlix. 11 (Sam. Ver. nmp,
" his city "), the Arab, renders S^j^x • Gen. xli. 43,
*7niM (Sam. Ver. tl^!? = Kijpu^), the Arab, trans-
lates . y. Q.hit Jo^t =1") nS.

lately acquired, dates A. H. 908 (a. d. 1502). Tha
chronicle embraces the time from Joshua to about
A. D. 350, and was originally written in, or subse-
quently translated into, Arabic. After eight chap-
ters of introductory matter begins the early history
of "Israel" under '•'■King Joshua," who, among
other deeds of arms, wages war, with 300,000
mounted men — "half Israel" — against two kings
of Persia. The last of his five "royal" successors
is Shimshon (Samson), the handsomest and most
powerful of them all. These reigned for the space
of 250 years, and were followed by five high-priests,
the last of whom was Usi ( ? = Uzzi, Ez. vii. 4).
With the history of Eli, "the seducer," which
then follows, and Samuel "a sorcerer," the ac-
count, by a sudden transition, runs off to Nebu-
chadnezzar (ch. 45), Alexander (ch. 46), and Ha-
drian (47), and closes suddenly at the time of
Julian the Apostate.

We shall only adduce here a single specimen
out of the 45th ch. of the book, which treats of
the subject of the Pentateuch : —

Nebuchadnezzar was king of Persia (Mossul),
and conquered the whole world, also the kings of
Syria. In the thirteenth year of their subjuga-
tion they rebelled, together with the kings of Jeru-
salem (Kodsh). Whereupon the Samaritans, to
escape from the vengeance of their pursuer, fled,
and Persian colonists took their place. A curse,
however, rested upon the land, and the new immi-
grants died from eating of its fruits (.foseph. Ant.
ix. 14, § 3). The chiefs of Israel {i. e. Samari-
tans), being asked the reason of this by the king,
explained it by the abolition of the worship of
God. The king upon this permitted them to return
and to erect a temple, in which work he promised
to aid them, and he gave them a letter to all their
dispersed brethren. The whole Dispersion now
assembled, and the Jews said, " We will now go
up into the Holy City (Jerusalem) and live there
in unity." But the sons of Harun (Aaron) and
of Joseph {i. e. the priests and the Samaritans)
insisted upon going to the "Mount of Blessing,"
Gerizim. The dispute was referred to the lung, and
while the Samaritans proved their case from the
books of Moses, the Jews grounded their preference
for Jerusalem on the post-Mosaic books. The supe-
rior force of the Samaritan argument was fully recog-
nized by the king. But as each side — by the mouth
of their spokesmen, Sanballat and Zerubabel respec-
tively, — charged the other with basing its claims
on a forged document, the sacred books of each
party were subjected to the ordeal of fire. The
Jewish Kecord was immediately consumed, while
the Samaritan leaped three times from the flames
into the king's lap : the third time, however, a por-
tion of the scroll, upon which the king had spat,
was found to have been consumed. Thirty-six
Jews were immediately beheaded, and the Samari-
tans, to the number of 300,000 wept, and all Israel
worshipped henceforth upon Mount Gerizim —
" and so we will ask our help from the grace of
God, who has in his mercy granted all these things,
and in Him we will confide."

2. From this work chiefly has been compiled an-
other Chronicle, written in the 14th century (1355),

b A word, it may be observed by the way,
taken by the Mohammedans from the Rabbinical

{np^vn) -isia

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

by Abu'l Fatah.« This comprises the history of
the Jews and Samaritans from Adam to A. H. 756
and 708 (a. d. 1355 and 13'J7) respectively (the
forty-two years must have been added by a later
historiographer). It is of ecjually low historical
value ; its only remarkable feature being its adop-
tion of certain Talmudical legends, which it took
at second hand from Josippon ben Gorion. Accord-
ing to this chronicle, the deluge did not cover
Gerizim, in the same manner as the Midrash {Ber.
Rah.) exempts the whole of Palestine from it. A
specimen, likewise on the subject of the Penta-
teuch, may not be out of place: —

In the year of the world 4150, and in the 10th
year of Philadelphus, this king wished to learn the
difference between the Law of the Samaritans, and
that of the Jews. He therefore bade both send
him some of their elders. The Samaritans dele-
gated Ahron, Sumla, and Hudmaka, the Jews
Eleazar only. The king assigned houses to them,
and gave them each an adept of the Greek language,
in order that he might assist them in their transla-
tion. The Samaritiins rendered only their Penta-
teuch into the language of the land, while Eleazar
produced a translation of the whole Canon. The
king, i)erceiving variations in the respective Penta-
teuclis, asked the Samaritans the reason of it.
Whereupon they replied that these difterences chiefly
turned ujion two points. (1.) God luul chosen the
Mount of Gerizim: and if the Jews were right,
why was there no mention of it in their ThoraV
(2.) The Samaritans read, Deut. xxxii. 35,

Dp3 QVv, "to the (Uiy of vengeance and re-
ward," the Jews Dp3 "^7, <•'■ Mine is vengeance
and reward" — which left it uncertain whether
that reward was to be given here or in the world
to come. The king then asked what was their
opinion about the Jewish prophets and their writ-
ings, and they replied, " Either they must have said
and contained what stood in the Pentateuch, and
then their saying it again was superfluous ; or more ;
or less : '' either of which was again distinctly pro-
hibited in the Thora; or finally they nmst have
changed the laws, and these were unchangeable."
A Greek who stood near, observed that laws must
be adapted to ditterent tin)es, and altered accord-
ingly; whereupon the Samaritans proved that this
was only the case with human, not with divhie
laws: moreover, the seventy Elders had left them
the explicit command not to accept a word beside
the Thora. The king now fully approved of their
translation, and gave them rich presents. But to
the Jews he strictly enjoined not even to approach
Mount (ierizim. There can be no doubt that there
is a certain historical fact, however contorted, at
the bottom of this (comp. the Talmudical and other
accounts of the LXX.), but we cannot now further
pursue the subject. A lengthened extract from
this chronicle — the original text with a German
translation — is given by Schnurrer in Paulus'
Neues Jiepertoniun, 1790, 117-159.

,^1

^1^1 ^\ y.

^y*My^\ ^^AJjJ ;^*.>oLwwJ| (Bodl.; Imp.

Library, Paris) Two copies in Berlin Library (Pe-
termann, Rosen) recently acquired.

* This work has since been published, with the
title : " Abulfiithi Annales Samaritani. Quos Arabice

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH 2815

3. Another «' historical " work is the v^^Uo

«jd3juwj)l on the history and genealogy of the

patriarchs, from Adam to Moses, attributed to
Moses himself; perhaps the same which Petermann
saw at JSdblus, and which consisted of sixteen
vellum leaves (supposed, however, to contain the
history of the world down to the end). An anony-
mous recent commentary on it, A. H. 1200, A. d.
1784, is in the Brit. Mus. (No. 1140, Add.).

4. Of other Samaritan works, chiefly in Arabic —
their Samaritan and Hebrew literature having
mostly been destroyed by the Emperor Commo-
dus — may be briefly mentioned Commentaries upon
the whole or parts of their Pentateuch, by Zadaka b.
Manga b. Zadaka; ^ further, by Maddib Eddin
Jussuf b. Abi Said b. Klialef ; by Ghazel Ibn Abu-
1-Surur Al-Safawi Al-Ghazzi <^ (a. h. 1167-68, A. d.
1753-54, Brit. Mus. ), &c. Theological works chiefly
in Arabic, mixed with Samaritanisms, by Abul
Hassan of Tyre, On the religious Manners and
Customs of the Samaritans, and the World to
come ; by Mowaffek Eddin Zadaka el Israili, A
Compendium of Rdiyion, on the Nature of the
Divine Being, on Man, on the Worshij) of God;
by Amin Eddin Abu'l Baracat, On the Ten Com-
mandments; by Abu'l Hassan Ibn El Markum
Gonajem ben Abulfaraj' ibn Chattir, On Penance;
by Muhaddib Eddin Jussuf Ibn Salmaah Ibn
Jussuf Al Askari, An Exposition of the Mosaic
Laws, etc., etc. Some grammatical works may
be further mentioned, by Abu Ishak Ibrahim,
On the Hebrew Language; by Abu Said, On

reading the Hebrev) Text (fyo't M ^^vJOi«J>).

This grammar begins in the following character-
istic manner: —

" Thus said the Sheikh, rich in good works and
knowledge, the model, the abstemious, the well-
guided Abu Said, to whom God be merciful and
compassionate.

" Praise be unto God for his help, and I ask for
his guidance towards a clear exposition, I have
resolved to lay down a few rules for the proper
manner of reading the Holy Writ, on account of
the difterence which I found, with resj>ect to it,
among our co-religionists — whom may God make
numerous and inspire to obedience unto Him ! —
and in such a manner that I shall bring proofs for
my assertions, from which the wise could in no
way differ. But God knows best !

" liule 1 : With all their discrepancies about
dogmas or religious views, yet all the confessors of

the Hebrew religion agree in this, that the jH of
the fii'st pei's. (sing, perf.) is always pronounced

with Kasra, and that a '^ follows it, provided it has
no suflix. It is the same, when the suffix of the

plural, D, is added to it, according to the unani-
mous testimony of the MSS., etc."

edidit, cum Proll. Latine vertit et Commentario illus-
travit Dr. Ed. Vilmar." Gotha, 1865, 8vo. A.

b Compare the well-known dictum of Omar on the
Alexandrian Library (Gibbon, ch. 51).

century, Bodl.)

d Under the title . .wfr v^/JfiLoLfl ^•^AjmKj

2816 SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

The treatise concludes, at the end of the 12th
Canon or Kule : —

" Often also the perfect is used in the form of
the imperative. Thus it is reported of a man
of the best reputation, that he had used the
form of the imperative in the passage (Ex. iii. 13),

IDtt? HD >b inDKI—c And they shall say to
me, What is his name ? ' He who reported this
to me is a man of very high standing, against
whose truthfulness nothing can be brought forward.
But God knows best!

" There are now a few more words to be treated,
of which, however, we will treat viva voce. And
blessed be His name forevermore."

5. Their Liturgical literature is more extensive,
and not without a certain poetical value. It con-
sists chiefly of hymns (Defter, Durran) and prayers
for Sabbath and Feast-days, and of occasional
prayers at nuptials, circumcisions, burials, and the
like. We subjoin a few specimens from MSS. in
the British Museum, transcribed into Hebrew char-
acters.

The following is part of a Litany for the dead : —

Lord Jehovah, Elohim, for Thy mercy, and for Thine
Own sake, and for Thy name, and for Thy glory, and
for the sake of our Lords Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, and our Lords Moses and Aaron, and Eleazar,
and Ithamar, and Pinehas, and Joshua, and Caleb,
and the Holy Angels, and the seventy Elders, and the
holy mountain of Gerizun, Beth El, If Thou accept-

est [D'^tt^H] this prayer [S*"lpD = reading], may
there go forth from before Thy holy countenance a
gift sent to protect the spirit of Thy servant, ,,» jVj
j^ jLs I .VjI [N- the son of N.], of the sons of

[ ], daughter [ ] from the sons of [ ].

Lord Jehovah, in Thy mercy have compassion on him

(•! [or] have compassion on her), and rest his (her)
soul in the garden of Eden ; and forgive him (- 1

[or] her), and all the congregation of Israel who flock
to Mount Gerizim, Beth El. Amen. Through Moses
the trusty. Amen, Amen, Amen.

The next is part of a hymn (see Kirchheim's
Carme Shomron, emendations on Gesenius, Carm.
Sam. iii.): —

inW SbS nbS rr^b There is no God but one,

nD*»37p DTlbW The everlasting God,

Uhvh IV W^Vpl Who liveth forever ;

7'*b''n 73 hV nbW God above all powers,

D v57 V )!3 ^DDI And who thus remaineth
forever.

^rnn3 TTDD "fb^^nn in Thy great power shall
we trust,

I^D in nM"T For Thou art our Lord ;

n"^T:iW1 *7n*inbWn in Thy Godhead ; for
Thou hast conducted

nK7''*l )T2 HT^hV The world from begin-
ning.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

rf'D^ *7^*^''^ ^•^y Powc'^ ^as hidden,

^"^^m*! ^"intDl And Thy glory and mercy.

nnWD^I nnS'>b:i ^^b:i Revealed are both the
things that are re-
vealed, and those
that are unrevealed

131 ^mnbW Itobtt^n Before the reign of
Thy Godhead, etc.

IV. We shall only briefly touch here, in con-
clusion, upon the strangely contradictory rabbinical
laws framed for the regiUation of the intercourse
between the two rival nationalities of Jews and
Samaritans in religious and ritual matters; dis-
crepancies due partly to the ever-shifting phases of
their mutual relations, partly to the modifications
brought about in the Samaritan creed, and partly
to the now less now greater acquiescence of the
Jews in the religious state of the Samaritans.
Thus we find the older Talmudical authorities dis-
puting whether the Cuthim (Samaritans) are to

be considered as "Eeal Converts" iHT^M '^'^'^3,
or only converts through fear— " Lion Converts "
^'^1'^'^W '''T'^ — in allusion to the incident related
in 2 K. xvii. 25 {Baba K. 38; Kidush. 75, &c.).
One Eabbi holds ^^^2 TI13, « A Samaritan is
to be considered as a heathen;" while K. Simon
b. Gamaliel — the same whose opinion on the Sam.
Pent, we had occasion to quote before — pro-
nounces that they are "to be treated in every
respect like Israelites" {Dem. Jer. ix. 2; Ketub.
11, (fee). It would appear that notwithstanding
their r^ection of all but the Pentateuch, they had
adopted many traditional religious practices from
the Jews — principally such as were derived direct
from the books of Moses. It was acknowledged
that they kept these ordinances with even greater
rigor than those from whom they adopted them.
The utmost confidence was therefore placed in them
for their ritually slaughtering animals, even fowls
(Chul. 4 a); their wells are pronounced to be
conformed to all the conditions prescribed by the
Mishnah {Toseph. Mikw. 6; comp. Mihjo. 8,
1). See, however, Abodah Zarah {Jer. v. 4).
Their unleavened bread for the Passover is com-
mended {Git. 10; Chul. 4); their cheese {Mas.
Cuth. 2); and even their whole food is allowed
to the Jews {Ab. Zar. Jer. v. 4). Compare John
iv. 8, where the disciples are reported to have gone
into the city of Samaria to buy food. Their testi-
mony was valued in that most stringent matter of
the letter of divorce {Mas. Cuth. ii.). They were
admitted to the office of circumcising Jewish boys
{Mas. Cuth. i.) — against K. Jehudah, who asserts
that they circumcise "in the name of Mount
Gerizim " {Abodah Zai'ah, 43). The criminal
law makes no difference whatever between them and
the Jews {Mas. Cuth. 2; Mahk. 8); and a Sa-
maritan who strictly adheres to his own special
creed is honored with the title of a Cuthi-Chaber
{Cittin, 10 b\ Middali, 33 b). By degrees, how-
ever, inhibitions began to be laid upon the use
of their wine, vinegar, bread {Mas. Cuth. 2;
Toseph.^ 77, 5), &c. This intermediate stage of
uncertain and inconsistent treatment, which must
have lasted for nearly two centuries, is best char-
acterized by the small rabbinical treatise quoted
abqye — Massechetji (Cuthim (2d cent. A. d.) —

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH

first edited by Kircliheim (ni3r:!p 'D» V^W

D Vli?"!*!'*) Francf. 1851 — the beginning of which
reads: "The ways (treatment) of the Cuthim (Sa-
maritans), sometimes like Goyini (heathens) some-
times like Israel." No less striking is its conclu-
sion : —

" And why are the Cuthim not permitted to come
into the midst of the Jews? liecause they have
mixed with the priests of the heights " (idolaters).
R. Isniael says: "They were at Jirst pious con-
verts (p"T^ '^1''^ = real Israelites), and why is
the intercourse with them prohibited ? Because of
their illegally begotten children," and because they

do not fulfill the duties of DD^ (marrying the
deceased brother's wife); " a law which they under-
stand, as we saw above, to apply to the betrothed
only.

" At what period are they to be received (into
the Community) ? " " When they abjure the Mount
Gerizim, recognize Jerusjilem (namely, its superior
claims), and believe in the Resurrection."''

We hear of their exclusion by R. Jleir ( Chul.
6), in the third generation of the Tanaim, and
later again under R. Abbuha, the Amora, at the
time of Diocletian; this time the exclusion was
unconditional and final {Jer. Abixhih Zarah, 5,
(fee.). Partaking of their breads was considered a
transgression, to lie punished like eating the flesh
of swine {Zeb. 8, 6). The intensity of their
mutual hatred, at a later period, is best shown by
dicta like that in Mey. 28, 6. " May it never
happen to me that I behold a Cuthi." " Whoever
receives a Samaritan hospitably in his house, de-
serves that his children go into exile " (Si/nh.
104, 1). In Matt. x. 5 Samaritans and Gentiles
are already mentioned together; and in Luke xvii.
18 the Samaritan is called "a stranger" (ctAAo-
y€vf}s)- The reason for this exclusion is variously
given. They are said by some to have used and
sold the wine of heathens for sacrificial purposes
{Jer. ibid.); by others they were chained with
worshipping the dove sacred to Venus; an imputa-
tion over the correctness of which hangs, up to this
moment, a certain mysterious doubt. It has, at
all events, never been brought home to.them, that
they really worshipped this image, although it was
certainly seen with them, even by recent travellers.

AiUhin-ities. — 1. Original texts. Pentateuch in
the Polyglotts of Paris, and Walton; also (in Ilebr.
letters) by Blayney, 8vo, Ox. 1790. Sam. Version
in the Polyglotts of Walton and Paris. Arab.
Vers, of Abu Said, Libri Gen. Ex. et Lev. by
Kuenen, 8vo, Lugd. 1851-54; also Van Vloten,
Specimen, ete., 4to, Lugd. 1803. Liierce ad Scal-
iger, etc. (by De Sacy), and Kpistola ad Liuloljjh.
(Bruns), in Eichhorn's Jiepertorium, xiii. Also,
with Letters to De Sacy himself, in Notices et Ex-
traits des MSS. [vol. xii.] Par. 1831. Chrcmic.cm
Samaritanum, by JuynboU, 4to, Leyden, 1848.
Specimen of Samar. Commentary on Gen. xlix. by
Schnurrer, in Eichhorn's Repert. xvi. Carm. Sa-
mar. [ed.] Geseuius, 4to, Lips. 1824.

a The briefest rendering of D'^"lT?2tt which we
can give — a full explanation of the term would ex-
ceed our limits.

b On this subject the Pent, contains nothing ex-
plicit. They at first rejected that dogma, but adopted
It at a later period, perhaps since Dositheus ; comp.

SAMGAR-NEBO

2817

2. Dissertations, etc., J. Morinus, Exercitationes,
ete., Par. 1631 ; Opuscida Hebr. Samai-itica, Par.
1657; Antiquitates Eccl. Orient., Lond. 1682. J.
H. Hottinger, Exercit. Anti-matiniance, etc., Tigur.
1644. Walton, De Pent. Sam. in Prolegom. ad
Polyghtt. Castell, Animadversiones, in Polyglott,
vi. Cellarius, Horce Samaritance, Ciz. 1682; also
Collectanea, in Ugolini, xxii. Leusden, Philologus
Hebr. Utraj. 1686. St. Morinus, Exercit. de Ling,
pi-inusvd, Utr. 1694. Schwarz, Exercitationes,
ete. Houbigant, Prolegomena, etc., Par. 1746.
Kennicott, State of the Heb. Text, etc., ii. 1759.
J. G. Carpzov, Crit. Sacra V. T. Pt. 1, Lips.
1728. Hassencamp, Enideckter Ursprung, etc.
0. G. Tychsen, Disputatio, ete., Biitz. 1765. Bauer,
Crit. Sacr. Gesenius, De Pent. Sam. Origine,
ete., Hal. 1815 ; Samar. Theologia, ,etc., Hal.
1822 ; AnecdoUi Eaxm., Lips. 1824. Hengstenberg,
Auth. des Pent. Mazade, Sur P Origine, etc.,
Gen. 1830. M. Stuart, N. Amer. Rev. [vol. xxii.]
Frankel, Voistudien, Leipz. 1841, [and Einfluss
d. jxdestin. Exegese, etc., 1851.] Karchheim,

^"imU:? ^tin'D, Frankfort, 1851. The Einleitr-
ungen of Eichhorn, liertholdt, Vater, De Wette,
HUvemick, Keil, [Bleek,] ete. The Geschichten
of Jost, Herzfeld, ete.

3. Versions. Winer, De Vers. Petit. Sam.
De Sacy, Mem. sur la, Vei's. Arabe des Livres de
Moise, in Mem. de Litterature, xHx., Par. 1808;
also L'^tat actuel des Samnritains, Par. 1812;
De Versione Samaintano-Arabica, ete., in Eich-
horn's AUg. Bibliothek, x. 1-176. E. 1).

* On the Samaritan Pentateuch there are articles
by Prof. Stuart in the Bibl. Repos. for Oct. 1832,
and by T. Walker in the Christ. Examiner for
May and Sept. 1840. See also Davidson's art. in
Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl. Lit., 3d ed., iii. 746 ff.;
Rosen in the Zeitschr. d. deutschen morgenl. Ge-
sellsch., xviii. 582 ff. ; S. Kohn, De Pentateucho
Somaritano, Vratisl. 1865, and id. Samaiita-
nische Stiulien, Breslau, 1867. A.

SAM'ATUS C^afiarSs: Semedius). One of
the sons of Ozora in the list of 1 Esdr. ix. 34.
The whole verse is very corrupt.

* SAMECH, one of the Hebrew letters era-
ployed in the alphabetic compositions. [Poetry;
Writing,] H.

SAME'IUS [3 syl.] {^afialos [Vat. ©afiaios;
Aid. 2o/i€?os] ). Shemaiah of the sons of Harim
(1 Esdr. ix. 21; comp. Ezr. x. 21).

SAM'GAR-NE'BO (^np-^a^p [.see be-
low] : Semegarnabu). One of 'the princes or gen-
erals of the king of Babylon who commandetl the
victorious army of the Chaldseans at the capture
of Jerusalem (Jer. xxxix. 3). The text of the
LXX. is corrupt. The two names " Samgar-
nebo, Sarsechim," are there written 'Xa/xaycloO
[Alex. Eta-a-afiayae] kuI Na^ovadxap. '^'l^e Nebo
is the Chaldaean Mercury ; about the Samgar, opin-
ions are divided. Von Bohlen suggested that from
the Sanskrit sangara, "war," might be formed
sangara, "warrior," and that this was the original
of Samgar.

the sayings of Jehudda-hadassi and Massudi, that one
of the two Samaritan sects believes in the llesurrec-
tion ; Epiphanius, Leontius, Gregory the Great, testify
unanimously to their former unbelief in this article
of their present faith.

«^ riD, Lightfoot " bucella '' (?)

2818 SAMi

SA'MI {Tw&ls; [Vat. Tw^Sets; Aid. Sa/i^;]
Alex. 2a)8et: Tobi). Shohai (1 l£sdr. v. 28;
conip. Ezr. ii. 42).

SA'MIS (2o/x6lfy; [Vat. So/xeets; Alex. :io-
fifis; Aid. 5o)Uts:] om. in Vulg.). Shimei 13
(1 Esdr. ix. 34; comp. Ezr. x. 38).

SAM'LAH (nbpCi? [ffarment] : Sa/taSo;
Alex. 2oAa/ta; [in l"Chr., Rom. 2€)8Aa; Vat.
Alex. 2a/iao:] Semla), Gen. xxxvi. 36, 37; 1 Chr.
i. 47, 48. One of the kings of Edom, successor to
Hadad or Hadau. Sanilali, whose name signi-
fies "a garment." was of Maskekah; that being
probaljly the chief city during his reign. This
mention of a separate city as belonging to each
(almost without exception) of the "kings" of
Edom, suggests that the Edomite kingdom con-
sisted of a Confederacy of tribes, and that the chief
city of the reigning tribe was the metropolis of the
whole. E. S. P.

SAM'MUS {:^afifio6s; [Vat. Sayu^ou:] Sa-
mus). Shema (1 Esdr. ix. 43; comp. Neh. viii.
4).

SA'MOS {"Xafxas [height: Samus]). A very
illustrious Greek island off that part of Asia Minor
where Ionia touches Cakia. For its history, from
the time when it was a powerful member of the Ionic
confederacy to its recent struggles against Turkey
during the war of independence, and since, we must
refer to the Did. of Greek and Ram. Geog." Sa-
mos is a very lofty and commanding island ; the
word, in fact, denotes a height, especially by the sea-
shore: hence, also, the nan)e of Samothkacia, or
" the Thracian Samos." The Ionian Samos comes
before our notice in the detailed account of St.
Paul's return from his third missionary journey
(Acts XX. 15). He had been at Chios, and was
about to proceed to Miletus, having passed by
Ephesus without touching there. The topograph-
ical notices given incidentally by St. Luke are
most exact. The night was spent at the anchor-
age of Trogyllium, in the narrow strait between
Samos and the extremity of the mainland-ridge of
Mycale. This spot is famous both for the great
battle of the old Greeks against the Persians in B.
c. 479, and also for a gallant action of the modern
Greeks against the Turks in 1824. Here, however,
it is more natural (especially as we know, from 1
Mace. XV. 23, that Jews resided here) to allude to
the meeting of Herod the Great with Marcus
Agrippa in Samos, whence resulted many privi-
leges to the Jews (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 2, §§ 2, 4).
At this time and when St. Paul was there, it was
politically a " free city " in the province of Asia.
Various travellers (Tournefort, Pococke, Dallaway,
Ross) have described this island. We may refer
particularly to a very recent work on the subject,
Description de Vile de Patmos et de VUe de Samos
(Paris, 18.50), by V. Gudrin, who spent two
months in the island. J. S. H.

a A curious illustration of the renown of the Sa-
mian earthenware is furnished by the Vulgate render-
ing of Is xlv. 9 : " Testa de Samiis terroe."

b * Samothrace lies in the track of the steamers
from Constantinople to Neapolis {Kavalla) andThessa-
lonica. The work of A. Conze, Reise an/ den Inseln
des Thrakischen Meeres, contains the results of a visit
in 1858 to Thasos, Samothrace, Inibros, and Limnos,
mainly for the purpose of copying monumental sculp-
tures and inscriptions. Some of those in Samothrace
are specially interesting on account of their great an-

SAMSON

SAMOTHRA'CIA i^afioepdKv [prob. height
of Thrace] : Samothracla). The mention of this
island in the account of St. Paul's first voyage to
Europe (Acts xvi. 11) is for two reasons worthy of
careful notice. In the first place, being a very
lofty and conspicuous island, it is an excellent land-
mark for sailors, and must have been full in view
if the weather was clear, throughout that voyage
from Troas to Neapolis. From the shore at Troas
Samothrace is seen towering over Imbros (Hom.
IL xiii. 12, 13; Kinglake's Jiofhen, p. 64), and it is
similarly a marked object in the view from the hills
between Neapolis and Phihppi (Clarke's Traveh,
ch. xiii.). These allusions tend to give vividness
to one of the most important voyages that ever
took place. Secondly, this voyage was made with
a fair wind. Not only are we told that it occupied
only parts of two days, whereas on a subsequent
return-voyage (Acts xx. 6) the time spent at sea
was five: but the technical word here used (eijdvSpo-
/xTJtrojuei/) implies that they ran before the wind.
Now the position of Samothrace is exactly such as
to correspond with these notices, and thus incident-
ally to confirm the accuracy of a most artless nar-
rative. St. Paul and his companions anchored for
the night off Samothrace. The ancient city, and
therefore probably the usual anchorage, was on the
N. side, which would be sufficiently sheltered from
a S. E. wind. It may be added, as a further prac-
tical consideration not to be overlooked, that such
a wind would be favorable for overcoming the
opposing current, which sets southerly after leaving
the Dardanelles, and easterly between Samothrace
and the mainland. Fuller details are given in
Life and Kpp. of St. Paul, 2d. ed. i. 335-338.
The chief classical associations of this island are
mythological and coimected with the mysterious
divinities called Cabeiri. Perseus took refuge here
after his defeat by the Romans at Pydna. In St.
Paul's time Samothrace had, according to Pliny,
the privileges of a small free state, though it was
doubtless considered a dependency of the province
of Macedonia.^ J. S. H.

SAMP'SAMES ([Rom. Sin.] 2a/ii|/ci/t7;s,
[Alex.] '2,afx\paKr]9- Lampsacns, SamjJsames), a
name which occurs in the list of those to whom the
Romans are said to have sent letters in favor of the
Jews (1 Mace. xv. 23). The name is probably not
that of a sovereign (as it appears to be taken in
A. v.), but of a place, which Grimm identifies with
Samsun on the coast of the Black Sea, between
Sinope and Trebizond. B. F. W.

SAM'SON (V'^^'P^, i- e. Shimshon: 2o/i-
i/zcOi/: [Samson,'] "Httle sun," or "sunlike;" but
according to Joseph. Ant. v. 8, § 4 " strong: " if
the root sAe7«es/t has the signification of "awe"
which Gesenius ascribes to it, the name Samson
would seem naturally to allude to the " awe " and
astonishment " with which the father and mother

tiquity and their symbolic import as connected with
the remarkable religious rites of which that island
was the seat. Fr. W. J. Schelling maintains the She-
mitic origin of these rites and of some of the associated
t,eaching8 in his noted lecture, Ueber die Gottheiten
von Samothrake. See also Creuzer's Symbolik, ii.
302 fif. It is worth mentioning that the old form of
the Greek future which has generally disappeared
from the modern Greek is found to be common in
these rarely visited retreats of the old Hellenic race.

SAMSON

looked upon the angel who announced Samson's
birth — see Judg. xiii. 6, 18-20, and Joseph. /. c),
son of Manoah, a man of the town of Zorah, in the
tribe of Dan, on the border of Judah (Josh. xv.
33, xix. 41). The miraculous circumstances of his
birth are recorded in Judg. xiii.; and the three fol-
lowing chapters are devoted to the history of his
life and exploits. Samson takes his place in Scrip-
ture, (1) as a judge — an office which he filled for
twenty years (Judg. xv. 20, xvi. 31); (2) as a Naz-
arite (Judg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17); and (3) as one en-
dowed with supernatural power by the Spirit of the
Lord (Judg. xiii. 25, xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14).

(1.) As a judge his authority seems to have been
limited to the district bordering upon the country
of the Philistines, and his action as a deliverer does
not seem to have extended beyond desultory attacks
upon the dominant Philistines, by which their hold
upon Israel was weakened, and the way prepared
for the future emancipation of the Israelites from
their yoke. It is evident from Judg. xiii. 1, 5, xv.
9-11, 20, and the whole history, that the Israelites,
or at least Judah and Dan, which are the only
trilies mentioned, were subject to the Philistines
through the whole of Samson's judgeship; so that,
of course, Samson's twenty years of office would be
included in the forty years of the Philistine domin-
ion. From the angel's sj)eech to Samson's mother
(Judg. xiii. 5), it appears further that the Israelites
were already subject to the Philistines at his birth;
and as Samson cannot have begun to be judge be-
fore he was twenty years of age, it follows that his
judgeship must about have coincided with the last
twenty years of Philistuie dominion. But when
we turn to the First Book of Sanuiel, and especially
to vii. 1-14, we find that the Philistine dominion
ceased under the judgeship of Samuel. Hence it is
obvious to conclude that the early part of Samuel's
judgeship coincided with the latter part of Sam-
son's ; and that the capture of the ark by the Phi-
listines in the time of Eli occurred during Samson's
lifetime. There are besides several points in the
respective narratives of the times of Samson and
Samuel which indicate great proximity. First,
there is the genend prominence of the Philistines
in their relation to Israel. Secondly, there is the
remarkable coincidence of both Samson and Sam-
uel being Nazarites (Judg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17, com-
pared with 1 Sam. i. 11). It looks as if the great
exploits of the young Danite Nazarite had suggested
to Hannah the consecration of her son in like man-
ner, or, at all events, as if for some reason the
Nazarite vow was at that time prevalent. No
other mention of Nazarites occurs in the Scripture
history till Amos ii. 11, 12; and even there the al-
lusion seems to be to Samuel and Samson. Thirdly,
there is a similar notice of the house of Dagon in
Judg. xvi. 23, and 1 Sam. v. 2. Fourthly, the
lords of the Philistines are mentioned in a similar
way in Judg. xvi. 8, 18, 27, and in 1 Sam. vii. 7.
All of which, taken together, indicates a close

SAMSON

2819

a " Hercules once went to Egypt, and there the inhab-
itants took him, and, putting a chaplet on his head,
led him out in solemn procession, intending to offer
him in sacrifice to Jupiter. For awhile he submitted
quietly ; but when they led him up to the altar, and
began the ceremonies, he put forth his strength and
slew them all " (Rawlins, Herod, book ii. 45).

The passage from Lycophron, with the scholion,
quoted by Bochart {Hieroz. pars ii. lib. v. cap. xii.),
where Hercules is said to have been three nights in
the belly of the sea-monster, and to have come out

proximity between the times of Samson and Sam-
uel. There does not seem, however, to be any
means of fixing the time of Samson's judgeship
more precisely. The effect of his prowess must
have been more of a preparatory kind, by arous-
ing the cowed spirit of his people, and shaking the
insolent security of the Philistines, than in the way
of decisive victory or deliverance. There is no
allusion whatever to other parts of Israel during
Samson's judgeship, except the single fact of the
men of the border tribe of Judah, 3,000 in number,
fetching him from the rock Etam to deliver him
up to the Philistines (Judg. xv. 9-13). The whole
narrative is entirely local, and, like the following
story concerning Micah (Judg. xvii., xviii.), seems
to be taken from the annals of the tribe of Dan.

(2.) As a Nazarite, Samson exhibits the law in
Num. vi. in full practice. [Nazakite.] The
eminence of such Nazarites as Samson and Samuel
would tend to give that dignity to the profession
which is alluded to in l^m. iv. 7, 8.

(3.) Samson is one of those who are distinctly
spoken of in Scripture as endowed with supernat-
ural power by the Spirit of the Lord. " The
Spirit of the Lord began to move him at times in
Mahaneh-Dan." " The Spirit of the Lord came
mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon
his arms became as flax burnt with fire." "The
Spirit of the Ixird came upon him, and he went
down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them."
But, on the other hand, after his locks were cut,
and his strength was gone from him, it is said
" He wist not that the Lord was departed from
him " (Judg. xiii. 25, xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14, xvi. 20).
The phrase, " the Spirit of the Lord came upon
him," is conmion to him with Othniel and Gideon
(Judg. iii. 10, vi. 34); but the connection of super-
natural power with the integrity of the Nazaritic
vow, and the particular gift of great strength of
body, as seen in tearing in pieces a lion, breaking
his bonds asunder, carrying the gates of the city
upon his back, and thi-owing down the pillars which
supported the house of Dagon, are quite peculiar
to Samson. Indeed, his whole character and his-
tory have no exact parallel in Scripture. It is
easy, however, to see how forcibly the Israelites
would be taught, by such an example, that their
national strength lay in their complete separation
from idolatry, and consecration to the true God;
and that He could give them power to subdue their
mightiest enemies, if only they were true to his
service (comp. 1 Sam. ii. 10).

It is an interesting question whether any of the
legends which have attached themselves to the
name of Hercules may have been derived from
Phoenician traditions of the strength of Samson.
The combination of great strength with submis-
sion to the power of women; the slaying of the
Nemeaean lion ; the coming by his death at the
hands of his wife ; and especially the story told by
Herodotus of the captivity of Hercules in Egypt,"

with the loss of all his hair, is also curious, and seems
to be a compound of the stories of Samson and Jonah.
To this may be added the connection between Samson,
considered as derived from Shemesh, " the sun," and
the designation of Moui, the Egyptian Hercules, as
" Son of the Sun," worshipped also under the name
Sent, which Sir G. Wilkmson compares with Samson.
The Tyrian Hercules (whose temple at Tyre is de-
scribed by Herodot. ii. 44), he also tells us, " was
originally the Sun, and the same as Baal" (Rawl.
Herod, ii. 44, note 7). The connection between the

2820

SAMSON

are certainly remarkable coincidences. Phoenician
traders might easily have carried stories concerning
tlie Hebrew hero to the difierent countries where
they traded, esi)ecially Greece and Italy ; and such
stories would have been mouldetl accorditig to the
taste or imagination of those who heard them.
The following description of Hercules given by C.
O. Miiller (Dorians, b. ii. c. 12) might almost
have been written for Samson : " The highest de-
gree of human suffering and courage is attributed
to Hercules : his character is as noble as could be
conceived in those rude and early times ; but he is
by no means represented as free from the blemishes
of human nature; on the contrary, he is frequently
subject to wild, ungovernable passions, when the
noble indignation and anger of the suffering hero
degenerate into frenzy. Every crime, however, is
atoned for by some new suffering; but nothing
breaks his invincible courage, until, purified from
earthly corruption, he ascends Mount Olympus."
And again : " Hercules was a jovial guest, and not
backward in enjoying himself. .... It was
Hercules, above all other heroes, whom mythology
placed in ludicrous situations, and sometimes made
the butt of the buffoonery of others. The Cercopes
are represented as alternately amusing and annoy-
ing the hero. In works of art they are often rep-
resented as satyrs who rob the hero of his quiver,
bow, and club. Hercules, annoyed at their insults,
binds two of them to a pole, and marches off with

his prize It also seems that mirth

and buffoonery were often combined with the festi-
vals of Hercules: thus at Athens there was a
society of sixty men, who on the festival of the
Diomean Hercules attacked and amused themselves
and others with sallies of wit." Whatever is
thought, however, of such coincidences, it is certain
that the history of Samson is an historical, and
not an allegorical narrative. It has also a dis-
tinctly supernatural element which cannot be ex-
plained away. The history, as we now have it,
must have been written several centuries after Sam-
son's death (Judg. xv. 19, 20, xviii. 1, 30, xix. 1),
though probably taken from the annals of the tribe
of Dan. Josephus has given it pretty fully, but
with alterations and embellishments of his own,
after his manner. For example, he does not make
Samson eat any of the honey which he took out
of the hive, doubtless as unclean, and unfit for a
Nazarite, but makes him give it to his wife. The
only mention of Samson in the N. T. is that in
Heb. xi. 32, where he is coupled with Gideon,
Barak, and Jephthah, and spoken of as one of
those who " through faith waxed valiant in fight,

Phoenician Baal (called Baal Shemen, Baal Shemesh,
and Baal Hamman), and Hercules is well known.

Gesenius ( Thes. a. v. v3?!3) tells us that, in certain
Phoenician inscriptions, which are accompanied by a
Greek translation, Baal is rendered Herakles, and that
" the Tyrian Hercules " is the constant Greek designa-
tion of the Baal of Tyre. He also gives many Car-
thaginian inscriptions to Baal Hamman, which he
renders Baal Solaris ; and also a sculpture in which
Baal Hamman's head is surrounded with rays, and
which has an image of the sun on the upper part of
the monument {Mon. Phczn. i. 171 ; ii. tab. 21).
Another evidence of the identity of the Phoenician
Baal and Hercules may be found in Ba^tli, near Baise,
a place sacred to Hercules ("locus Heroulis," Serv.),
but evidently so called from Baal. Thirlwall {Hist, of
Greece) ascribes to the numerous temples built by the

SAMUEL

and turned to flight the armies of the aliens."
See, besides the places quoted in the course of this
article, a full article iu Winer, liealwb.; Ewald,
Geschichie, ii. 516, &c.; Bertheau, On Judges;
Bayle's Diet. A. C H.

SAM'UEL (b«ll!2?7, i. e. Shemiiel: 2a^-
ovf)\' [Samuei:] Arabic, Samml, or Aschmouyl,
see D'Herbelot, under this last name). Different

derivations have been given. (1.) vM DW, " name
of God:" so apparently Origen (Eus. B. E. vi.

God." (3.) bS biStt?, "asked of God" (1
Sam. i. 20). Josephus ingeniously makes it cor-
respond to the well-known Greek name Thecetetus.

(4.) b« VM2W, "heard of God." This, which

may have the same meaning as the previous deriva-
tion, is the most obvious. The last Judge, the first
of the regular succession of Prophets, and the
founder of the monarchy. So important a position
did he hold in Jewish history as to have given his
name to the sacred book, now divided into two,
which covers the whole period of the first establish-
ment of the kingdom, corresponding to the man-
ner in which the name of Moses has been assigned
to the sacred book, now divided into five, which
covers the period of the foundation of the Jewish
Church itsek In fact no character of equal mag-
nitude had arisen since the death of the great
Lawgiver.

He was the son of Elkanah, an Ephrathite or
Ephraimite, and Hannah .or Anna. His father is
one of the few private citizens in whose household
we find polygamy. It may possibly have arisen
from the irregularity of the period.

The descent of Elkanah is involved in great ob-
scurity. In 1 Sam. i. 1 he is described as an
Ephraimite. In 1 Chr. vi. 22, 23 he is made a
descendant of Korah the Levite. Hengstenberg
(on Ps. Ixxviii. 1) and Ewald (ii. 433) explain this
by supposing that the Levites were occasionally in-
corporated into the tribes amongst whom they
dwelt. The question, however, is of no practical
importance, because, even if Samuel were a Levite,
he certainly was not a Priest by descent.

His birthplace is one of the vexed questions of
sacred geography, as his descent is of sacred gene-
alogy. [See Ramah, and Ramathaim-Zophim.]
All that appears with certainty from the accounts
is that it was in the hills of Ephraim, and (as may
be inferred from its name) a double height, used
for the purpose of beacons or outlookers (1 Sam. i.

Phoenicians in honor of Baal in their different settle-
ments the Greek fables of the labors and journeys of
Hercules. Bochart thinks the custom described by
Ovid {Fast, liv.) of tying a lighted torch between two
foxes in the circus, in memory of the damage once
done to the harvest by a fox with burning hay and
straw tied to it, was derived from the Phoenicians, and
is clearly to be traced to the history of Samson {Hieroz.
pars. i. lib. iii. cap. xiii.). From all which arises a
considerable probability that the Greek and Latin con-
ception of Hercules in regard to his strength was de-
rived from Phoenician stories and reminiscences of the
great Hebrew hero Samson. Some learned men con-
nect the name Hercules with Samson etymologically.
(See Sir G. Wilkinson's note in Rawlinson's Herod, ii.
43 ; Patrick, On Judg. xvi. 80 ; Cornel, a Lapide, etc.)
But none of these etymologies are very convincing.

SAMUEL

1). At the foot of the hill was a well (1 Sam. xix.
22). On the brow of its two summits was the
city. It never lost its hold on Samuel, who in later
life made it his fixed abode.

The combined family nmst have been large.
Peninnah had several children, and Hannah had,
besides Samuel, three sons and two daughters.
But of these nothing is known, unless the names
of the sons are those enumerated in 1 Chr. vi.
26, 27.

It is on the mother of Samuel that our chief
attention is fixed in the account of his birth. She
is described as a woman of a high religious mis-
sion. Almost a Nazarite by practice (I Sam. i.
15), and a prophetess in her gifts (1 Sam. ii. 1),
she sought from God the gift of the child for which
she longed with a passionate devotion of silent
prayer, of which there is no other example in the
O. T., and when the son was granted, the name
which he bore, and thus first introduced into the
world, expressed her sense of the urgency of her
entreaty — Samuel, " the Asketi or Heard of God."

Living in the great age of vows, she had before
his birth dedicated him to the otttce of a Nazarite.
As soon as he was weaned, she herself with her
husband brought him to the Tabernacle at Shiloh,
where she had received the first intimation of his
birth, and there solenmly consecrated him. The
form of consecration was similar to that with which
the irregular priesthood of Jeroboam was set apart
in later times (2 Chr. xiii. 9) —a bullock of three
years old (LXX.), loaves (LXX.), an ephah of
flour, and a skin of wine (1 Sam. i. 24). First
took place the usual sacrifices (LXX.) by Elkanah
himself — then, after the introduction of the child,
the special sacrifice of the bullock. Then his
mother made him over to Eli (i. 25, 28), and (ac-
cording to the Hebrew text, but not the LXX.)
the child himself jjerformed an act of worship.

The hymn which followed on this consecration
is the first of the kind in the sacred volume. It is
possible that, like many of the Psalms, it may have
been enlarged in later times to suit great occasions
of victory and the like. But verse 5 specially ap-
plies to this event, and verses 7, 8 may well express
the sense entertained by the prophetess of the com-
ing revolution in the fortunes of her son and of her
country. [Hannah.]

From this time the child is shut up in the
Tabernacle. The priests furnished him with a
sacred garment, an ephod, made, like their own,
of white linen, though of inferior quality, and his
mother every year, apparently at the only time of
their meeting, gave him a httle mantle reaching
down to his feet, such as was worn only by high
personages, or women, over the other dress, and
such as he retained, as his badge, till the latest
times of his life. [Mantle, vol. ii. p. 1782 b.]
He seems to have slept within the Holiest Place
(LXX., 1 Sam. iii. 3), and his special duty was to
put out, as it would seem, the sacred candlestick,
and to open the doors at sunrise.

In this way his childhood was passed. It was
whilst thus sleeping in the Tabernacle that he re-
ceived his first prophetic call. The stillness of the
night — the sudden voice — the childlike misconcep-
tion — the venerable Eli — the contrast between the
terrible doom and the gentle creature who has to

SAMUEL

2821

a According to the Mussulman tradition, Samuel's
birth is granted in answer to the prayers of the nation
on the overthrow of the sanctuary and loss of the ark

announce it — give to this portion of the narrative
a universal interest. It is this side of Samuel's
career that has been so well caught in the well-
known picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds.

From this moment the prophetic character of
Samuel was established. His words were treasured
up, and Shiloh became, the resort of those who
came to hear him (iii. 19-21).

In the overthrow of the sanctuary, which fol-
lowed shortly on this vision, we hear not what
became of Samuel." He next appears, probably
twenty years afterwards, suddenly amongst the
people, warning them against their idolatrous prac-
tices. He convened an assembly at Mizpeh —
probably the place of that name in the tribe of
Benjamin — and there with a symbolical rite, ex-
pressive partly of deep humiliation, partly of the
libations of a treaty, they poured water on the
ground, they fasted, and they entreated Samuel to
raise the piercing cry, for which he was known, in
supplication to God for them. It was at the
moment that he was oflfering up a sacrifice, and
sustaining this loud cry (compare the situation of
Pausanias before the battle of Platiea, Herod, ix.
61), that the Philistine host suddenly burst upon
them. A violent thunderstorm, and (according to
Josephus, Ant. vi. 2, § 2) an earthquake, came to
the timely assistance of Israel. The Philistines
fled, and, exactly at the spot where twenty years
before they had obtained their great victory, they
were totally routed. A stone was set up, which
long remained as a memorial of Sanuiel's triumph,
and gave to the place its name of Eben-ezer, " the
Stone of Help," which has thence passed into
Christian phraseology, and become a common name
of Nonconformist chaj)els (1 Sam. vii. 12). The
old Canaanites, whom the Philistines had dispos-
sessed in the outskirts of the Judaean hills, seem to
have helped in the battle, and a large portion of
territory was recovered (1 Sam. vi. 14). This was
Samuel's first and, as far as we know, his only
military achievement. But, as in the case of the
earlier chiefs who bore that name, it was appar-
ently this which raised him to the ofiice of "Judge"
(comp. 1 Sam. xii. 11, where he is thus reckoned
with Jerubbaal, Bedan, and Jephthah; and P^cclus.
xlvi. 15-18). He visited, in discharge of his duties
as ruler, the three chief sanctuaries (eV iraai rois
Tfyiaff/jLevots rouTotj) on the west of the Jordan —
Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpeh (1 Sam. vii. 16). His
own residence was still his native city, Ramah or
Ramathaim, which he further consecrated by an
altar (vii. 17). Here he married, and two sons
grew up to repeat under his eyes the same per-
version of high office that he had himself witnessed
in his childhood in the case of the two sons of Eli.
One was Abiah, the other Joel, sometimes called
simply "the second" (vashni, 1 Chr. vi. 28). In
his old age, according to the quasi-hereditary prin-
ciple, already adopted by previous judges, he shared
his power with them, and they exercised their func-
tions at the southern frontier in Beer-sheba (1 Sam.
viii. 1-4).

2. Down to this point in Samuel's life there is
but little to distinguish his career from that of his
predecessors. Like many characters in later days,
had he died in youth his fame would hardly have
been greater than that of Gideon or Samson. He

(D'Herbelot, Aschmouyl). This, though false in the
letter, is true to the spirit of Samuel's life.

2822

SAMUEL

was a judge, a Nazarite, a warrior, and (to a cer-
tain point) a prophet.

But his pecuUar position in the sacred narrative
turns on the events which follow. He is the in-
augurator of the transition from what is commonly
called the theocracy to the monarchy. The mis-
demeanor of his own sons^ in receiving bribes, and
in extorting exorbitant interest on loans (1 Sam.
viii. 3, 4), precipitated the catastrophe which had
been long preparing. The people demanded a king.
Josephus (Ant. vi. 3, § 3) describes the shock to
Samuel's mind, "because of his inborn sense of
justice, because of his hatred of kings, as so far
inferior to the aristocratic form of government,
which conferred a godlike character on those who
lived under it." For the whole night he lay fast-
ing and sleepless, in the perplexity of doubt and
difficulty. In the vision of that night, as recorded
by the sacred historian, is given the dark side of
the new institution, on which Samuel dwells on the
following day (1 Sam. viii. 9-18).

This presents his reluctance to receive the new
order of things. The whole narrative of the recep-
tion and consecration of Saul gives his acquiescence
in it. [Saul.]

The final conflict of feeling and surrender of his
office is given in the last assembly over which he
presided, and in his subsequent relations with Saul.
The assembly was held at Gilgal, immediately after
the victory over the Ammonites. The monarchy
was a second time solemnly inaugurated, and (ac-
cording to the LXX.) "Samuel" (in the Hebrew
text "Saul") "and all the men of Israel rejoiced
greatly." Then takes place his farewell address.
By this time the long flowing locks on which no
razor had ever passed were white with age (xii. 2).
He appeals to their knowledge of his integrity.
Whatever might be the lawless habits of the chiefs
of those times — Hophni, Phinehas, or his own
sons — he had kept aloof from all. No ox or ass
had he taken from their stalls — no bribe to obtain
his judgment (LXX., i^lXacrfia) — not even a
sandal (urrt^STjyua, LXX., and Ecclus. xlvi. 19). It
is this appeal, and the response of the people, that
has made Grotius call him the Jewish Aristides.
He then sums up the new situation in which they
have placed themselves; and, although "the wick-
edness of asking a king" is still strongly insisted
on, and the unusual portent" of a thunderstorm
in May or June, in answer to Samuel's prayer, is
urged as a sign of Divine displeasure (xii. 16-19),
the general tone of the condemnation is much
softened from that which was pronounced on the
first intimation of the change. The first king is
repeatedly acknowledged as " the Messiah " or
anointed of the Lord (xii. 3, 5), the future pros-
perity of the nation is declared to depend on their
use or misuse of the new constitution, and Samuel
retires with expressions of goodwill and hope : " I
will teach you the good and the right way . .
. . only fear the Lord . . . . " (1 Sam. xii.
23, 24).

It is the most signal example afforded in the
0. T. of a great character reconciling himself to a
changed order of things, and of the Divine sanction
resting on his acquiescence. For this reason it is
that Athanasius is by Basil called the Samuel of
the Church (Basil, ^p. 82).

SAMUEL

3. His subsequent relations with Saul are of the
same mixed kind. The two institutions which they
respectively represented ran on side by side. Sam-
uel was still Judge. He judged Israel " all the
days of his life" (vii. 15), and from time to time
came across the king's path. But these interven-
tions are chiefly in another capacity, which this is
the place to unfold.

Samuel is called emphatically "the Prophet"
(Acts iii. 24, xiii. 20). To a certain extent this
was in consequence of the gift which he shared in
common with others of his time. He was espe-
cially known in his own age as " Samuel the Seer "
(1 Chr. ix. 22, xxvi. 28, xxix. 29). "I am the
seer," was his answer to those who asked " Where
is the seer?" "Where is the seer's house?" (1
Sam. ix. 11 18, 19). "Seer," the ancient name,
was not yet superseded by "Prophet " (1 Sam. ix.).
By this name, Samuel Videns and Samuel b j8A€-
TTwv, he is called in the Acta Sanctorum. Of the
three modes by which Divine communications were
then made, " by dreams, Urim and Thummim, and
prophets," the first was that by which the Divine
will was made known to Samuel (1 Sam. iii. 1, 2;
Jos. Ant. v. 10, § 4). "The Lord uncovered his
ear " to whisper into it in the stillness of the night
the messages that were to be delivered. It is the
first distinct intimation of the idea of '■^Revela-
tion'" to a human being (see Gesenius, in voc.

n72l). He was consulted far and near on the
small affairs of life; loaves of "bread," or "the
fourth part of a shekel of silver," were paid for the
answers (1 Sam. ix. 7, 8).

From this faculty, combined with his office of
ruler, an awful reverence grew up round him. No
sacrificial feast was thought complete without his
blessing (1 Sam. ix. 13). "When he appeared sud-
denly elsewhere for the same purpose, the villagers
"trembled " at his approach (1 Sam. xvi. 4, 5). A
peculiar virtue was believed to reside in his interces-
sion. He was conspicuous in later times amongst
those that " call upon the name of the Lord " (Ps.
xcix. 6; 1 Sam. xii. 18), and was placed with
Moses as " standing " for prayer, in a special sense,
" before the Lord " (Jer. xv. 1). It was the last
consolation he left in his parting address that he
would " pray to the Lord " for the people (1 Sam.
xii. 19, 23). There was something peculiar in the
long- sustained cry or shout of supplication, which
seemed to draw down as by force the Divine an-
swer (1 Sam. vii. 8, 9). All night long, in agi-
tated moments, " he cried unto the Lord " (1 Sam.
XV. 11).

But there are two other points which more espe-
cially placed him at the head of the prophetic order
as it afterwards appeared. The first is brought
out in his relation with Saul, the second in his
relation with David.

(a.) He represents the independence of the moral
law, of the Divine Will, as distinct from regal or
sacerdotal enactments, which is so remarkable a
characteristic of all the later prophets. As we
have seen, he wa.s, if a Levite, yet certainly not a
Priest; and all the attempts to identify his opposi-
tion to Saul with a hierarchical interest are founded
on a complete misconception of the facts of the
case. From the time of the overthrow of Shiloh,

a According to the Mussulman traditions, his anger
was occasioned by the people rejecting Saul as not
being of the tribe of Judah. The sign that Saul was

the king was the liquefaction of the sacred oil in his
presence and the recovery of the Tabemacl* (D'Her-
belot, Aschmouyl).

SAMUEL

he never appears in the remotest connection with
the priestly order. Ainongst all the places iii-
chuled ill his personal or administrative visits,
neither Shiloh, nor Nob, nor Gibeon, the seats of
the sacerdotal caste, are ever mentioned. When
he counsels Saul, it is not as the priest, but as the
prophet; when he sacrifices or blesses the sacrifice,
it is not as the priest, but either as an individual
Israelite of eminence, or as a ruler, like Saul him-
self. Saul's sin in both cases where he came into
collision with Samuel, was not of intruding into
sacerdotal functions, but of disobedience to the
prophetic voice. The first was that of not waiting
for Samuers arrival, according to the sign given
by Samuel at his original meeting at li:imah (I
Sam. X. 8, xiii. 8); the second was that of not car-
rying out the stern prophetic injunction for the
destruction of the Amalekites. When, on that
occasion, the aged I'rophet called the captive " prince
before him, and with his own hands h;icked him
limb from limb,'' in retribution for the desolation
he had brought into the homes of Israel, and thus
ofiered up his mangled remains almost as a human
sacrifice ("before the Lord in Gilgal"), we see the
representative of the older part of the Jewish his-
tory. Hut it is the true prophetic utterance, such
as breathes through the psalmists and prophets, when
he says to Saul in words which, from their poetical
form, must have become fixed in the national mem-
ory, " To obey is bettor than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams."

The parting was not one of rivals, but of dear
though divided friends. The King throws himself
on the i'rophet with all his force; not without a
vehenient effort (Jos. Ant. vi. 7, § 5) the prophet
tears himself away. The long mantle by which
he was always known is rent in the struggle; and,
like Ahijah ailer him, Samuel was in this the
omen of the coming rent in the monarchy. They
parted each to his house to meet no more. But
a long shadow of grief fell over the prophet.
" Sanniel mourned for Saul." " It grieved Samuel
for Saul." " How long wilt thou mourn for Saul ? "
(1 Sam. XV. 11, 35, xvi. 1).

(6.) He is the first of the regular succession of
prophets. "All the prophets from Samuel and
those that follow after " (Acts iii. 2i). " Ex quo
sanctus Samuel propheta ccepit et deinceps donee
populus Israel in Babyloniam captivus veheretur,

totum est tenipus prophetarum " (Aug.

Civ. Dei, xvii. 1). Moses, Miriam, and Deb»orah,
perhaps Ehud, had been prophets. But it was only
from Samuel that the continuous succession was
unbroken. This may have been merely from the
coincidence of his appearance with the beginning
of the new order of things, of which the prophet-
ical office was the chief expression. Some predis-
posing causes there may have been in his own
family and birthplace. His mother, as we have
seen, though not expressly so called, was in fact a
prophetess ; the word Zophim, as the affix of Ea-
mathaim, has been explained, not unreasonably, to
mean "seers;" and Elkanah, his father, is by the
Chaldee paraphrast on 1 Sam. i. 1, said to be " a
disciple of the prophets." But the connection of

SAMUEL

2823

a Agag is described by Josephus {Ant. vi. 7, § 2) as
a ciiief of magnificent appearance ; and hence rescued
from destruction. This is perhaps an inference from

the word n3"l5?^, which the Vulgate translates
pinguisfimus.

the continuity of the otfice with Samuel appears to
l)e still more direct. It is in his lifetime, long after
he had been ''established as a prophet" (1 Sam.
iii. 20), that we hear of the companies of disciples,
called in the O. T. "the sons of the propliets," by
modern writers " the schools of the prophets." All
the peculiarities of their education are implied or
expressed — the sacred dance, the sacred music, the
solemn procession (I Sam. x. 5, 10; 1 Chr. xxv. 1,
6). At the head of this congregation, or "church
as it were within a church " (LXX. t^j/ ckkAtj-
alav, 1 Sam. x. 5, 10), Samuel is expressly de-
scribed as "standing appointed over them " (1 Sam.
xix. 20). Their chief residence at this time
(though afterwards, as the institution spread, it
struck root in other places) was at Samuel's own
abode, Kamah, where they lived in habitations
{Nnu.>th, 1 Sam. xix. 19, &c.) apparently of a rustic
kind, like the leafy huts which Elisha's disciples
after>vard3 occupied by the Jordan {Nuiuth =
" habitations," but more specifically used for " pas-
tures '').

In those schools, and learning to cultivate the
prophetic gifts, were some whom we know for cer-
tain, others whom we may almost certainly conjec-
ture, to have been so trained or influenced. One
was Saul. Twice at least he is described as hav-
ing been in the company of Samuel's disciples, and
as having caught from them the prophetic fervor
to such a degree as to have " prophesied among
them " (1 Sam. x. 10, 11), and on one occasion to
have thrown off his clothes, and to have passed the
night in a state of prophetic trance (1 Sam. xix.
24): and even in his palace, the prophesying min-
gled with his niadness on ordinary occasions
(1 Sam. xviii. 9). Another was David. The
first acquaintince of Samuel with David, was when
he privately anointed him at the house of Jesse
[see David]. But the connection thus begun
with the shepherd boy must have been continued
afterwards. David, at first, fled to " Naioth in
liamah," as to his second home (1 Sam. xix. 19),
and the gifts of music, of song, and of prophecy,
here develo{>ed on so large a scale, were exactly
such as we find in the notices of those who looked
up to Sanmel as their father. It is, further,
hardly possible to escape the conclusion that David
there first met his fast friends and companions
in after life, prophets hke himself — Gad and
Nathan.

It is needless to enlarge on the importance with
which these incidents invest the appearance of
Samuel. He there becomes the spiritual father of
the Psalmist king. He is also the Founder of the
first regular institutions of religious instruction,
and communities for the purposes of education.
The schools of Greece were not yet in existence.
From these Jewish institutions were develojied, by
a natiu-al order, the universities of Christendom.
And it may be further added, that with this view
the whole life of Samuel is in accordance. He is
the prophet — the only prophet till the time of
Isaiah — of whom we know that he was so from
his earliest years. It is this continuity of his own
life and character, that makes him so fit an instru-
ment for conducting his nation through so great
a change.

The death of Samuel is described as taking place

6 1 Sam. XV. The LXX. softens this into ia4>a^e ;
but the Vulg. translation, in frusta concidit, " cut up
into small pieces," seems to be the true meaning.

2824

SAMUEL

in the year of the close of David's wanderings. It
is said with peculiar emphasis, as if to mark the
loss, that " all the Israelites " — all, with a uni-
versality never specified before — "were gathered
together" from all parts of this hitherto divided
country, and " lamented him," and " buried him,"
not in any consecrated place, nor outside the walls
of his city, but within his own house, thus in a
manner consecrated by being turned into his tomb
(1 Sam. XXV. 1). His relics were translated "from
Judaea" (the place is not specified) A. D. 406, to
Constantinople, and received there with much pomp
by the Emperor Arcadius. They were landed at
the pier of Chalcedon, and thence conveyed to a
church, near the palace of Hebdomon (see Acta
SancUyrum, Aug. 20).

The situation of Itamathaim, as has been observed,
is uncertain. But the place long pointed out as his
tomb is the height, most conspicuous of all in the
neighborhood of Jerusalem, immediately above the
town of Gibeon, known to the Crusaders as " Mont-
joye," as the spot from whence they first saw-
Jerusalem, now called Neby Samwil, " the Prophet
Samuel." The tradition can be traced back as
far as the 7th century, when it is spoken of as the
monastery of St. Samuel (Robinson, Bibl. Res. ii.
142), and if once we discard the connection of
Kamathaim with the nameless city where Samuel
met Saul (as is set forth at length in the articles
Ramaii; Ramathaim-Zopiiim), there is no reason
why the tradition should be rejected. A cave is
still shown underneath the floor of the mosque.
" He built the tomb in his lifetime," is the account
of the Mussulman guardian of the mosque, " but
was not buried here till after the expulsion of the
Greeks." It is the only spot in Palestine which
claims any direct connection with the first great
prophet who was born within its limits ; and its
commanding situation well agrees with the impor-
tance assigned to him in the sacred history.

His descendants were here till the time of David.
Heman, his grandson, was one of the chief sing-
ers in the Levitical choir (1 Chr. vi. 33, xv. 17,
XXV. 5).

The apparition of Samuel at Endor (1 Sam.
xxviii. 14; Ecclus. xlvi. 20) belongs to the history
of Saul.

It has been supposed that Samuel wrote a Life
of David (of course of his earher years), which was
still accessible to one of the authors of the Book of
Chronicles (1 Chr. xxix. 29); but this appears
doubtful. [See p. 2826 6.] Various other books
of the 0. T. have been ascribed to him by the
Jewish tradition : the Judges, Ruth, the two IJooks
of Samuel, the latter, it is alleged, Ijeiiig written
in the spirit of prophecy. He is regarded by the
Samaritans as a magician and an infidel (Hottin-
ger, Hist. Orient, p. 52).

The Persian traditions fix his life in the time
of Kai-i-Kobad, 2d king of Persia, with whom he
is said to have conversed (D'Herbelot, Kai Kobad).

A. P. S.

* The prophet Samuel lived at a great transi-
tional period of Jewish history. The Israelites had
been intended for a great nation, living under the
immediate Divine government, and closely knit to-
gether by religious ties. Through their unfaith-
fulness to God, they had become little more than a
collection of independent tribes, contiimally en-
gaged in harassing wars with their neighbors, and
often falling for long ijeriods together under their
power. It was therefore a natural desire that they

SAMUEL

should have a king to reunite them in one nation-'
ality, and enable them to make head against their
foes. To this Samuel was earnestly opposed, nor
did he acquiesce in their wish until expressly di-
rected to do so from on high, (iod saw that the
people were too sinful for the great destiny offered
them, and therefore it was fitting that in this
matter of government they should be reduced to
the level of other nations. It was by no means an
" example of the Divine sanction resting on [Sam-
uel's] acquiescence;" but rather of a Divine com-
mand to him to let a stifi-necked people have their
way. Ml

In the Tabernacle Samuel probably slept in one ^H
of the chambers over, or at the side of, the Taber- ^^
nacle [Temple]. The extreme improbability that
he should have slept in the Holy of Holies is en-
hanced by the fact that he was evidently in a
different apartment from Eli (1 Sam. iii. 4-10),
and if the latter was not within the vail, much less
the former. There is nothing in 1 Sam. iii. 3 to
suggest such a supposition. The " Temple " is there
particularized as the place " where the ark of God
w;rts," and the time is fixed as "before the lamp of
God" — which was outside the vaU — "went out
in the Temple of the Lord." No hint is given of
the place of Samuel's chamber. At a later date,
when the Ark was taken into the battle with the
Philistines, it does not appear that the Tabernacle
was otherwise disturbed, or that Samuel then gave
up his residence there. It is not likely that Sam-
uel himself ever actually engaged in military opera-
tions. In the successful battle with the Philistines
(1 Sam. vii.) he assisted by his prayers, but could
have taken no part in the battle itself, as he was
engaged at the time in oflTering sacrifice (ver 10).
The name "warrior" must therefore be omitted
from the list of his titles.

The narrative in 1 Sam. ix. 7, 8, affords no
ground for the supposition that either he or other
inspired prophets received compensation for their
utterances as a qvid pro qm after the fashion of
heathen soothsayers or modern necromancers.
Saul, a young man not of distinguished birth, and
an entire stranger to Samuel, did not think it
fitting, according to oriental etiquette, to approach
the great judge of Israel and divinely appointed
prophet without a present. This appears in the
narrative much more as a tribute to the rank and
station of Samuel than as a proposed payment for
his counsel — a thing abhorrent to the whole idea ^fl
of the prophetic office. ^Ml

In 1 Sam. xiii. the narrative distinctly makes the
sin of Saul " his intruding into sacerdotal func-
tions." Saul says (ver. 12), " Therefore, said I, the
Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal,
and I have not made supplication unto the Lord ;
I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offer-
ing." Samuel replies — making no allusion to
the not waiting for his coming, — " Thou hast done ^i
foolishly : thou hast not kept the commandment of ^M\
the Lord thy God." SI

It is impossible that Saul, and improbable that
David had any training in the schools of the
prophets under Samuel. The first passage adduced
in the article above ui evidence of such training
(1 Sam. X. 10) reads that "a company of the
prophets met " Saul as he went home after his
anointing (when he spent one night with Samuel
whom he had not before known) and "the spirit
of God came upon him, and he prophesied among
them." The only other passage given (1 Sam.

am. HI

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

xix. 24) is quite late in the reiyn of Saul when he
came to Naioth in pursuit of David, and there
spent a day and a night, while the spirit of proph-
ecy was upon him. In hoth cases the astonish-
ment of the beholders is expressed by the exclama-
tion, " Is Saul also among the prophets ? " — which
of course contradicts the sup[)osition that he had
been trained among them. In regard to David,
it is inaccurately said that he fled to " ' Naioth in
Ramah ' as to his second home (1 Sam. xix. 19)."
What is said is that " he came to Samuel to Ka-
mah and told him all that Saul had done to him.
And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth."
David's purpose was to seek refuge with Samuel,
the aged judge whom Saul still feared and re-
spected. He went to his residence at Ramah.
For reasons not mentioned, but probably from pru-
dential considerations, they left then together and
*' went and dwelt at Naioth."

Some otiier slight inadvertencies in the above
article the reader will readily correct for himself.

F. G.

. SAMUEL, BOOKS OF (bHJ)5:2^ :
Ba<Ti\eiu}U Tlpcarrj^ 'Aevrepa '■ Liber Reytnn
Primm, Secundus). Two historical books of the
Old Testament, which are not separated from each
other in the Hebrew MSS., and which, from a
critical point of view, must be regarded as one
book. The present division was first made in the
Septuagint translation, and was adopted in the Vul-
gate from the Septuagint. Hut Origen, as quoted
by Eusebius {IJisUn'. Kccles. vi. 25), expressly states
that they formed only one book among the He-
brews. Jerome {Prw/'. in JJf/ros Sumutl tt Mal-
acliiin) implies the same statement; and in the
Talmud {Baba Bathra, fol. U, c. 2), wherein the
authorship is attributed to Samuel, they are desig-
nated by the name of his book, in the singular

number (1^20 iHS bSl^lT^). After the in-
vention of printing they were pul>lished as one
book in the first edition of the whole Bible printed
at Soncino in 1488 A. d., and likewise in the Com-
plutensian Polyglot printed at Alcala, 1502-1517
A. D. ; and it vfixs not till the year 1518 that the
division of the Septuagint was adopted in Hebrew,
in the edition of the Bible printed by the Bom-
bergs at Venice. The book was called by the He-
brews » Samuel," probably because tlie birth and
life of Samuel were the subjects treated of in the
beginning of the work — just as a treatise on fes-
tivals in the Mishna bears the name of Btitsa/i, an
egg, because a question connected with the eating of
an egg is the first subject discussed in it. [Phari-
sees, vol. iii. p. 2475 «.] It has been suggested
indeed by Abarbanel, as quoted by Carpzov (211),
that the book was callecl by Samuel's name be-
cause all things that occur in each book may, in a
certain sense, be referred to Samuel, including the
acts of Saul and David, inasmuch as each of them
was anointed by him, and was, as it were, the
work of his hands. This, however, seems to be a
refinement of explanation for a fact which is to be
accounted for in a less artificial manner. And,
generally, it is to be observed that the logical titles
of books adopted in modern times must not be
looked for in Eastern works, nor indeed in early
works of modem Europe. Thus David's Lamen-
tation over Saul and Jonathan was called " Tlie
Bow," for some reason connected with the occur-
rence of that word in his poem (2 Sam. i. 18-22);
and Snorro Storleson's Chrojiicle of the Kings of
178

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 2825

Norway obtained the name of " Heimskringla,"
the World's Circle, because Heimskringla was the
first prominent word of the MS. that caught the
eye (Laing's Heimskrinyht, i. 1).

Autlwrship and Date of the Book. — The most
interesting points in regard to every important his-
torical work are the name, intelligence, and charac-
ter of the historian, and his means of obtaining
correct information. If these points should not be
known, next in order of interest is the precise pe-
riod of time when the work was composed. On all
these points, however, in reference to the book of
Samuel, more questions can be asked than can be
answered, and the results of a dispassionate inquiry
are mainly negative.

1st, as to the authorship. In common with all
the historical books of the Old Testament, except
the beginning of Nehemiah, the book of Sanmel
contains no mention in the text of the name of its
author. The earliest Greek historical work extant,
written by one who has frequently been called the
Father of History, commences with the words,
" This is a publication of the researches of Herod-
otus of Halicarnassus ; " and the motives which
induced Herodotus to write the work are then set
forth. Thucydides, the writer of the Greek his-
torical work next in order of time, who likewise
specifies his reasons for writing it, commences by
stating, " Thucydides the Athenian wrote the his-
tory of the war between the Peloj)onnesians and
Athenians," and frequently uses the formula that
such or such a year ended — the second, or third,
or fourth, as the case might be — -'of this war of
which Thucydides wrote the history " (ii, 70, 103;
iii. 25, 88, 116). Again, when he speaks in one
passage of events in which it is necessary that he
should mention his own name, he refers to himself
as " Thucydides son of Olorns, who composed this
work " (iv. 104). Now, with the one exception
of this kind already mentioned, no similar informa-
tion is contained in any historical book of the Old
Testament, although there are passages not only in
Nehemiah, but likewise in L^ra, written in the first
person. Still, without any statement of the author-
ship embodied in the text, it is possible that his-
torical books might come down to us with a title
containing the name of the antlior. This is the
case, for example, with Livy's Roman Uisto7-y, and
(.'aesar's Conmitntnrics of the Gallic War. In the
latter case, indeed, although Caesar mentions a long
series of his own actions, without intimating that
he was the author of the work, and thus there is an
antecedent improbability that he wrote it, yet the
traditional title of the work outweiglis this improb-
abiUty, confirmed as the title is, by an unbroken
chain of testimony, commencing with contempo-
raries (Cicero, Brut. 75; Cajsar, l)e Bell. Gall.
viii. 1; Suetonius. Jul. Cces. 56; Quinctilian, x. 1;
Tacitus, Germ. 28). Here, again, there is noth-
ing precisely similar in Hebrew history. The five
books of the Pentateuch have in Hebrew no title
except the first Hebrew words of each part; and
the titles Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy, which are derived from the Sep-
tuagint, convey no information as to their author-
In like manner, the book of Judges, the books of
the Kings and the Chronicles, are not referred to
any particular historian ; and although six works
bear respectively the names of Joshua, Ruth, Sam-
uel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, there is nothing
in the works themselves to preclude the idea that
in each case the sulject only of the work may h%

2826 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

indicated, and not its authorship ; as is shown con-
clusively by the titles Kuth and Esther, which no
one has yet construed into the assertion that those
celebrated women wrote the works concerning them-
selves. And it is indisputable that the title " Sam-
uel" does not imply that the prophet was the au-
thor of the book of Samuel as a whole; for the
death of Samuel is recorded in the beginning of
the 25th chapter; so that, under any circum-
stances, a different author would be required for
the remaining chapters, constituting considerably
more than one half of the entire work. Again, in
reference to the book of Samuel, the absence of
the historian's name from both the text and the
title is not supplied by any statement of any other
writer, made within a reasonable period from the
time when the book may be supposed to have been
written. No mention of the author's name is
made in the book of Kings, nor, as will be here-
after shown, in the Chronicles, nor in any other
of the sacred writings. In like manner, it is not
mentioned either in the Apocrypha or in Josephus.
The silence of Josephus is particularly significant.
He published his Antiquities about 1100 years
after the death of David, and in them he makes
constant use of the book of Samuel for one
portion of his history. Indeed, it is his exclusive
authority for his account of Samuel and Saul, and
his main authority, in conjunction with the Chron-
icles, for the history of David. Yet he nowhere
attempts to name the author of the book of Sam-
uel, or of any part of it. There is a similar silence
in the Mishna, where, however, the inference from
such silence is far less cogent. And it is not until
we come to the Babylonian Geniara, which is sup-
posed to have been completed in its present form
somewhere about 500 A. D., that any Jewish state-
ment respecting the authorship can be pointed out,
and then it is for the first time asserted (Baba
BoiJn-a, fol. 14, c. 2), in a passage already referred
to, that " Samuel wrote his book," i. e. as the words
imply, the book which bears his name. But this
statement cannot be proved to have been made
earlier than 1550 years after the death of Samuel —
a longer period than has elapsed since the death of
the Emperor Constantine; and unsupported as the
statement is by reference to any authority of any
kind, it would be unworthy of credit even if it
were not opposed to the internal evidence of the
book itself. At the revival of learning, an opinion
was propounded by Abarbanel, a learned Jew,
t A. D. 1508, that the book of Samuel was written
by the prophet Jeremiah" (Lat. by Aug. Pfeiffer,
Leipzig, 1686), and this opinion was adopted by
Hugo Grotius {Pref. ad Librum pnwem Savi-
uelis), with a general statement that there was no
discrepancy in the language, and with only one
special reference. Notwithstanding the eminence,
however, of these writers, this opinion nmst be re-
jected as highly improbable. Under any circum-
stances it could not be regarded as more than a
mere guess ; and it is in reality a guess uncoun-
tenanced by peculiar similarity of language, or of
style, between the history of Samuel and the writ-
ings of Jeremiah. In our own time the most

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

a Professor Hitzig, in like manner, attributes some
of the Psalms to Jeremiah. In support of this view,
he points out, Ist, several special instances of striking
similarity of language between those Psalms and the
writings of Jeremiah, and, 2dly, agreement l)etween
iuBtorical facts in the life of Jeremiah and the situa-

prevalent idea in the Anglican Church seems to
have been that the first twenty-four chapters of
the book of Samuel were written by the prophet
himself, and the rest of the chapters by the prophets
Nathan and Gad. This is the view favored by
Mr. Home (Introduction to the Holy Scriptures^
ed. 1846, p. 45), in a work which has had very ex-
tensive circulation, and which amongst many read-
ers has l^een the only work of the kind consulted
in England. If, however, the authority adduced
by him is examined, it is found to be ultimately
the opinion " of the Talmudists, which was adopted
by the most learned Fathers of the Christian
Church, who unquestionably had better means of
ascertaining this point than we have." Now the
absence of any evidence for this Opinion in the
Talmud has been already indicated, and it is diffi-
cult to understand how the opinion could have been
stamped with real value through its adoption by
learned Jews called Talmudists, or by leanied
Christians called Fathers of the Christian Church,
who lived subsequently to the publication of the
Talmud. For there is not the slightest reason for
supposing that in the year 500 A. D. either Jews or
Christians had access to trustworthy documents on
this suVjject which have not been transmitted to
modem times, and without such documents it can-
not be shown that they had any better means of
ascertaining this point than we have. Two cir-
cumstances have probably contributed to the adop-
tion of this opinion at the present day : Ist, the
growth of stricter ideas as to the importance of
knowing who was the author of any historical work
which advances claims to be tmstworthy; and
2dly, the mistranslation of an ambiguous passage
in the First Book of Chronicles (xxix. 29), respect-
ing the authorities for the life of David. The first
point requires no comment. On the second point
it is to be observed that the following appears to
be the correct translation of the passage in ques-
tion : " Now the history of David first and last,
behold it is written in the history of Samuel the
seer, and in the history of Nathan the prophet,
and in the history of Gad the seer" — in which
the Hebrew word dibrti, here translated "his-
tory," has the same meaning given to it each of
the four times that it is used. This agrees with
the translation in the Septuagint, which is particu-
larly worthy of attention in reference to the Chron-
icles, as the Chronicles are the \ery last work in the
Hebrew Bible; and whether this arose from, their
having been the last admitted into the Canon, or
the last composed, it is scarcely probable that any
translation in the Septuagint, with one great ex-
ception, was made so soon after the composition of
the original. The rendering of the Septuagint is
by the word \6yoi, in the sense, so well known
in Herodotus, of " history " (i. 184, ii. 161, vi.
137), and in the like sense in the Apocrypha,
wherein it is used to describe the history of Tobit,
fiifiKos \6ya)v TwjStT. The word "history"
(Geschichte) is likewise the word four times used
in the translation of this passage of the Chronicles
in Luther's Bible, and in the modern version of
the German Jews made under the superintendence

tion in which the writer of those Psalms depicts him-
self as having been placed (Hitzig, Die Psalmen, pp.
48-86). Whether the conclusion is correct or incor-
rect, this is a legitimate mode of reasoning, and there
is a sound basis for a critical superstructure. See
Psalms xxxi., xxxt., xl.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

of the learned Dr. Zunz (Berlin, 1858). In the
English Version, however, the word dibrei is trans-
lated in the first instance " acts " as applied to
David, and then "book" as applied to Samuel,
Nathan, and Gad; and thus, through the ambi-
guity of the word " book " the possibility is sug-
gested that each of these three prophets wrote a
book respecting his own life and times. This
double rendering of the same word in one passage
seems wholly inadmissible ; as is also, though in a
less degree, the translation of dibrei as " book,"
for which there is a distinct Hebrew word —
sepher. And it may be deemed morally certain
that this passage of the Chronicles is no authority
for the supjwsition that, when it was written, any
work was in existence of which either Gad, Na-
than, or Samuel was the author." •

2. Although the authorship of the book of Sam-
uel cannot be ascertained, there are some indica-
tions as to the date of the work. And yet even on
this point no precision is attainable, and we must
be satisfied with a conjecture as to the range, not
of years or decades, but of centuries, within which
the history was probably composed. Evidence on
this head is either external or internal. The earli-
est undeniable external evidence of the existence of
the book would seem to be the Greek translation
of it in the Septuagint. The exact date, however,
of the translation itself is uncertain, though it must
have been made at some time between the transla-
tion of the Pentateuch in the reign of Ptolemy
Philadelphus, who died B. c. 247, and the century
before the birth of Christ. The next best external
testimony is that of a passage in the Second Book
of Maccabees (ii. 13), in which it is said of Nehe-
niiah, that "he, foundhig a library, gathered to-
gether the acts of the kings, and the prophets,
and of David, and the, epistles of the kings con-
cerning the holy gifts." Now, although this pas-
sage cannot be relied on for proving that Nehe-
miah himself did in fact ever found such a library,''
yet it is good evidence to prove that the Acts of
the Kings, t^ Trcpl ruv $aai\f(i>u, were in exist-
ence when the passage was written; and it can-
not reasonably be doubted that this phrase was in-
tended to include the book of Samuel, which is
equivalent to the two first books of Kings in the
Septuagint. Hence there is external evidence that
the book of Samuel was written before the Second
Book of Maccabees. And lastly, the passage in
the Chronicles already quoted (1 Chr. xxix. 29)
seems likewise to prove externally that the book
of Samuel was written before the Chronicles. This
is not absolutely certain, but it seems to be the
most natural inference from the words that the his-
tory of David, first and last, is contained in the
history of Samuel, the history of Nathan, and the
history of Gad, For as a work has come down to
us, entitled Samuel, which contains an account of
the life of David till within a short period before

« In the Swedish Bible the word dibrei in each of
the four instances is translated " acts " ( Gemingar),
being precisely the same word which is used to desig-
nate the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament.
This translation is self-consistent and admissible.
But the German translations, supported as they are
by the Septuagint, seem preferable.

b Professors Ewald and Bleek have accepted the
statement that Nehemiah founded such a library, and
they make inferences from the account of the library
as to the time when certain books of the Old Testa-
ment were admitted into the Canon. There are, how-

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 2827

his death, it appears most reasonable to conclude
(although this point is open to dispute) that the
writer of the Chronicles referred to this work by
the title History of Samuel. In this case, admit-
ting the dat« assigned, on internal grounds, to the
Chronicles by a modern Jewish writer of undoubted
learning and critical powers, there would be exter-
nal evidence for the existence of the book of Sam-
uel earlier than 247 B. c, though not earlier than
312 B. c, the era of the Seleucidse (Zunz, Die
Gottesdienstlichen Voi'trdge der Juden. p. 32).
Supposing that the Chronicles were written earlier,
this evidence would go, in precise proportion,
further back, but there would be still a total ab-
sence of earlier external evidence on the subject
than is contained in the Chronicles. If, however,
instead of looking solely to the external evidence,
the internal evidence respecting the book of
Samuel is examined, there are indications of its
having been written some centuries earlier. On
this head the following points are worthy of no-
tice : —

1. The book of Samuel seems to have been writ-
ten at a time when the Pentateuch, whether it was
or was not in existence in its present form, was at
any rate not acted on as the rule of religious ob-
servances. According to the Mosaic I^w as finally
established, sacrifices to Jehovah were not lawful
anywhere but before the door of the Tabernacle of
the congregation, whether this was a permanent
temple, as at Jerusalem, or otherwise (Deut. xii.
13, 14; Lev. xvii. 3, 4; but see Ex. xx. 24). But
in the book of Samuel, the offering of sacrifices, or
the erection of altars, which implies sacrifices, is
mentioned at several places, such as Mizpeh, Ra-
mah. Bethel, the threshing-place of Araunah the
Jebusite, and elsewhere, not only without any dis-
approbation, apology, or explanation, but in a way
which produces the impression that such sacrifices
were pleasing to Jehovah (1 Sam. vii. 9, 10, 17,
ix. 13, X. 3, xiv. 35; 2 Sam. xxiv. 18-25). This
circumstance points to the date of the book of
Samuel as earlier than the reformation of Josiah,
when Hilkiah the high-priest told Shaphan the
scribe that he had found the Book of the Law in
the house of Jehovah, when the Passover was kept
as was enjoined in that book, in a way that no
Passover had been holden since the days of the
Judges, and when the worship upon high-places
was abolished by the king's orders (2 K. xxii. 8,
xxiii. 8, 13, 15, 19, 21, 22). The probability that
a sacred historian, writing after that reformation,
would have expressed disapprobation of, or would
have accounted for, any seeming departure from the
laws of the Pentateuch by David, Saul, or Samuel,
is not in itself conclusive, but joined to other con-
siderations it is entitled to peculiar weight. The
natural mode of dealing with such a religious scan-
dal, when it shocks the ideas of a later generation,
is followed by the author of the book of Kings, who

ever, the following reasons for rejecting the state-
ment: 1st. It occurs in a letter generally deemed
spurious. 2dly. In the same letter a fabulous story
is recorded not only of Jeremiah (ii. 1-7), but likewise
of Nehemiah himself. 3dly. An erroneous historical
statement is likewise made in the same letter, that
Nehemiah built the Temple of Jerusalem (i. 18). No
witness in a court of justice, whose credit had been
shaken to a similar extent, would, unless corroborated
by other evidence, be relied on as an authority for any
important fact.

2828 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

undoubtedly lived later than the reformation of eTo-
siah, or than the beginning, at least, of the captiv-
ity of Judah (2 K. xxv. 21, 27). This writer men-
tions tlie toleration of worship on high-places with
disapprobation, not only in connection with bad
kinjis, such as Manasseh and Ahaz, but likewise as
a drawback in the excellence of other kings, such as
Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Aniaziah, Azariah, and
Jotham, who are praised for having done what was
right in the sight of Jehovah (1 K. xv. U, xxii. 43;
2 K. xii. 3, xiv. 4, xv. 4, 35, xvi. 4, xxi. 3); and
something of the same kind might have been ex-
pected in the writer of the book of Samuel, if he
had lived at a time when the worship on high-
places had been abolished.

2. It is in accordance with this early date of the
book of Samuel that allusions in it even to the
existence of Moses are so few. After the return
from the Captivity, and more especially after the
changes introduced by Ezra, Moses became that
great central figure in the thoughts and language
of devout Jews which he could not fail to be when
all the laws of the Pentateuch were observed, and
they were all referred to him as the divine prophet
who communicated them directly from Jehovah.
This transcendent importance of Moses must al-
ready have commenced at the finding of the Book
of the Law at the reformation of Josiah. Now it
is remarkable that the book of Samuel is the his-
torical work of the Old Testament in which the
name of Moses occurs most rarely. In Joshua it
occurs 56 times; in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehe-
miah, 31 times; in the book of Kings ten tinies;
in Judges three times; but in Samuel only twice
(Zunz, Voi-lrdye, 35). And it is worthy of note
that in each case Moses is merely mentioned with
Aaron as having brought the Israelites out of the
land of Egypt, but nothing whatever is said of the
Law of Moses (1 Sam. xii. 6, 8). It may be
thought that no inference can be drawn from this
omission of the name of Moses, because, inasmuch
as the Law of Moses, as a whole, was evidently not
actetl on in the time of Samuel, David, and Solo-
mon, there was no occasion for a writer, however
late he lived, to introduce the name of Moses at all
in connection with their life and actions. But it is
very rare indeed for later writers to refrain in this
way from importing the ideas of their own time
into the account of earlier transactions. Thus,
very early in the book of Kings there is an allusion
to what is "written in the Law of Moses" (1 K.
ii. 3). Thus the author of the book of Chronicles
makes, for the reign of David, a calculation of money
in darics, a Persian coin, not likely to have been
in common use among the Jews until the Persian
domination had been fully established. Thus,
more than once, Josephus, in his Antiquities of
Uie Jews, attributes expressions to personages in
the Old Testament which are to be accounted for
by what was familiar to his own mind, although
they are not justified by his authorities. For ex-
ample, evidently copying the history of a transac-
tion from the book of Samuel, he represents the
prophet Samuel as exhorting the people to bear in
mind " the code of laws which Moses liad given
then) " (tt)? Muva-eas vo/modeaias, -^nt. vi. 5, § 3),
though there is no mention of Moses, or of his leg-
islation, in the correspondmg passage of Samuel (1

a As compared with Samuel, the peculiarities of
the Pentateuch are not quite as striking as the differ-
ences in language between Lucretius and Virgil : the

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

Sam, xii. 20-25). Again, in giving an account 61
the punishments with which the Israelites were
threatened for disobedience of the Law by Moses in
the book of Deuteronomy, Josephus attributes to
Moses the threat that their temple should Ije burned
{Ant. iv. 8, § 46). But no passage can be pointed
out in the whole Pentateuch in which such a threat
occurs ; and in fact, according to the received chro-
nology (1 K. vi. 1), or according to any chronol-
ogy, the first temple at Jerusalem was not built till
some centuries after the death of Moses. Yet this
allusion to the burning of an unbuilt temple ought
not to be regarded as an intentional misrepresenta-
tion. It is rather an instance of the tendency in
an historian who describes past events to give un-
consciously indications of his living himself at a
later epoch. Similar remarks apply to a passage
of Josephus (Ant. vii. 4, § 4), in which, giving an
account of David's project to build a temple at Je-
rusalem, he says that David wished to prepare a
temple for God, "as Moses commanded," thougli
no such command or injunction is found to be in the
Pentateuch. To a religious Jew, when the laws of
the Pentateuch were observed, Moses could not fail
to be the predominant idea in his mind ; Imt Moses
would not necessarily be of equal importance to a
Hebrew historian who lived before the reformation
of Josiah.

3. It tallies with an early date for the compo •
sition of the book of Samuel that it is one of the
best specimens of Hebrew prose in the golden age
of Hebrew literature. In prose it holds the same
place which Joel and the undisputed prophecies of
Isaiah hold in poetical or prophetical language. It
is free from the peculiarities of the book of Judges,
which it is proposed to account for by supposing
that they belonged to the popular dialect of Northern
Palestine; and likewise from the slight peculiarities
of the Pentateuch, which it is proposed to regard as
archaisms « (Gesenius, Hebreio Gramvinv, § 2, 5).
It is a striking contrast to the language of the book
of Chronicles, which undoubtedly belongs to the
silver age of Hebrew prose, and it does not contain
as many alleged Chaldaisms as the few in the book
of Kings. Indeed the number of Chaldaisms in the
book of Samuel which the most rigid scrutiny has
suggested do not amount to more than about six
instances, some of them doubtful ones, in 90 pages
of our modern Hebrew Bible. And, considering the
general purity of the language, it is not only possi-
ble, but probable, that the trifling residuum of Chal-
daisms may be owing to the inadvertence of Chal-
dee copyists, when Hebrew had ceased to be a living
language. At the same time this argument from
language must not be pushed so far as to imply
that, standing alone, it would be conclusive; for
some writings, the date of which is about the time
of the Captivity, are in pure Hebrew, such as the
prophecies of Habakkuk, the Psalms cxx., cxxxvii.,
cxxxix., pointed out by Gesenius, and by far the
largest portion of the latter part of the prophecies
attributed to " Isaiah " (xl.-lxvi.). And we have
not sufficient knowledge of the condition of the Jews
at the time of the Captivity, or for a few centuries
after, to entitle any one to assert that there were no
individuals among them who wrote the purest He-
brew. Still the balance of probability inclines to the
contrary du-ection, and, as a subsidiary argument.

parallel which has been suggested by Gesenius. Vir-
gil seems to have been about 14 years of age when
Lucretius' great poem was published.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

the purity of language of the book of Samuel is
entitled to some weight.

Assuming, then, that the work was composed at
a period not later than the reformation of Josiah, —
gay, B. c. 622, — the question arises as to the very
earliest iK)int of time at which it could have existed
in its present form. And the answer seems to be,
that the earliest period was subsequent to the seces-
sion of the Ten Tril)es. This results from the pas-
sage in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, wherein it is said of Da-
vid, "Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day:
wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Ju-
dah unto this day: " for neither Saul, David, nor
Solomon is in a single instance called king of Ju-
dah simply. It is true that David is said, in one
narrative respecting him, to have reigned in Hebron
seven years and six months over Judah (2 Sam. v.
5) before he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-three
years over all Isnvel and .ludah ; but he is, notwith-
stivnding, never designated by the title King of
.ludah. Before the secession, the designation of
the kings was that they were kings of Israel (1
Sam. xiii. 1, xv. 1, xvi. 1; 2 Sam. v. 17, viii. 15;
1 K. ii. 11, iv. 1, vi. 1, xi. 42). It may safely,
therefore, be assumed that the l)Ook of Samuel
could not have existed in its present form at an
earlier period than the reign of Kehoboam, who as-
cended the throne k. c. 975. If we go beyond
tliis, and endeavor to assert the precise time be-
tween 975 B. c. and G22 n. c, when it was com-
posed, all certain indications fail us. The expres-
sion " unto this day," used several times in the
book (1 Sam. v. 5, vi. 18, xxx. 25; 2 Sam. iv. 3,
vi. 8), in addition to the use of it in the passage
already quoted, is t<x» indefinite to prove anything,
except that the writer who employed it lived subse-
quently to the events he descril)ed. It is inade-
quate to prove whether he lived three centuries, or
only half a century, after those events. The same
remark applies to the phrase, " Therefore it became
a proverb, ' Is Saul among the Prophets ? ' " (1
Sam. X. 12), and to the verse, " Beforetime in Is-
rael, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he
spake. Come, and let us go to the seer : for he that
is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a
Seer" (1 Sam. ix. 9). In both cases it is not cer
tain that the writer lived more than eighty years
after the incidents to which he alludes. In Uke man-
ner, the various traditions respecting the manner
in which Saul first became acquainted with David
(1 Sam. xvi. 14-23, xvii. 55-58) — respecting the
manner of Saul's death (1 Sam. xxxi. 2-6, 8-13;
2 Sam. i. 2-12) — do not necessarily show that a
very long time (say even a century) elapsed between
the actual events and the record of the traditions.
In an age anterior to the existence of newspapers
or the invention of printing, and when probably
few could read, thirty or forty years, or even less,
have been sufficient for the growth of different tra-
ditions respecting the same historical fact. Lastly,
internal evidence of language lends no assistance
for discrimination in the {)eriod of 353 years within
which the book may have been written; for the
undisputed Hebrew writings belonging to that pe-
riod are comparatively few, and not one of them is
a history, which would present the best points of
romparison. They embrace scarcely more than
the writiniis of Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum,
/md a certain jwrtion of the writings under the title
'Isaiah." The whole of these writings together
tun scarcely be estimated as occupying more than
«xty pages of our Hebrew Bibles, and whatever

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 2829

may be their peculiarities of language or style, they
do not aftbrd materials for a safe inference as to
which of their authors M'as likely to have been con-
temporary with the author of the book of Samuel.
All that can be asserted as undeniable is, that the
book, as a whole, can scarcely have been composed
later than the reformation of Josiah, and that it
could not have existed in its present form earlier
than the reign of Kehoboam.

It is to be added that no great weight, in oppo-
sition to this conclusion, is due to the fact that the
death of David, although in one passage evidently
implied (2 Sam. v. 5), is not directly recorded in the
book of Samuel. From this fact Hiivernick {Ein-
Itituny in d(is Alte Testament, part ii., p. 145)
deems it a certain inference that the author lived
not long after the death of David. But this is a
very sHght foundation for such an inference, since
we know nothing of the author's name, or of the
circumstances under which he wrote, or of his pre-
cise ideas resjiecting what is required of an histo-
rian. We cannot, therefore, assert, from the knowl-
edge of the character of his mind, that his deeming
it logically requisite to make a formal statement
of David's death would have depended on his living
a short time or a long time after that event. Be-
sides, it is very possible that he did formally record
it, and that the mention of it was subsequently
omitted on account of the more minute details by
which the account of David's death is preceded
in the First Book of Kings. There would have
been nothing wrong in such an omission, nor in-
deed, in any addition to the book of Samuel; for,
as those who finally inserted it in the Canon did
not transmit it to posterity with the name of any
particidar author, their honesty was involved, not
in the mere circumstance of their omitting or
adding anything, but solely in the fact of their
adding nothing which they believed to be false,
and of omitting nothing of importance which they
believed to be true.

In this absolute ignorance of the author's name,
and vague knowledge of the date of the work,
theiy has been a controversy whether the book of
Samuel is or is not a compilation from preexist-
ing documents; and if this is decided in the af-
firmative, to what extent the work is a compilation.
It is not intended to enter fully here into this con-
troversj', respecting which the reader is referred to
Dr. Davidson's Introduction to the Critical Study
and Knowledge of the Holy Soipttires, London,
Longman, 1856, in which this subject is dispas-
sionately and fairly treated. One observation, how-
ever, of some practical importance, is to be borne
in miijd. It does not admit of much reasonable
doubt that in the book of Samuel there are two
dilferent accounts (already alluded to) respecting
Saul's first acquaintance with David, and the cir-
cumstances of Saul's death — and that ) et the
editor or author of the book did not let his mind
work upon these two diflTerent accounts so far as to
make him interpose his own opinion as to which
of the conflicting accounts was correct, or even to
point out to the reader that the two accounts were
apparently contradictory. Hence, in a certain
sense, and to a certain extent, the author must be
regarded as a compiler, and not an original his-
torian. And in reference to the two accounts of
Saul's death, this is not the less true, even if the
second account be deemed reconcilable with the first
by the sup{X)sition that the Amalekit'e had fabri-
cated the story of his having killed Saul (2 Sam.

2880 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

i. 6-10). Although possibly true, this is an un-
likely supposition, because, as the Amalekite's ob-
ject in a lie would have been to curry favor with
David, it would have been natural for hira to have
forged some story which would have redounded
more to his own credit than the clumsy and im-
probable statement that he, a mere casual spectator,
had killed Saul at Saul's own request. But whether
the Amalekite said what was true or what was
false, an historian, as distinguished from a compiler,
could scarcely have failed to convey his own opinion
on the point, affecting, as on one alternative it did
materially, the truth of the narrative which he had
just before recorded respecting the circumstances
under which Saul's death occurred. And if com-
pilation is admitted in regard to the two events
just mentioned, or to one of them, there is no
antecedent improbability that the same may have
been the case in other instances; such, for exam-
ple, as the two explanations of the proverb, " Is
Saul also among the Prophets? " (1 Sam. x. 9-12,
xix. 22-24), or the two accounts of David's having
forborne to take Saul's life, at the very time when
he was a fugitive from Saul, and his own life was
in danger from Saul's enmity (1 Sam. xxiv. 3-15,
xxvi. 7-12). The same remark applies to what
seem to be summaries or endings of narratives by
diff'erent writers, such as 1 Sam. vii. 15-17, 1 Sam.
xiv. 47-52, compared with chapter xv.; 2 Sam.
viii. 15-18. In these cases, if each passage were
absolutely isolated, and occurred in a work which
contained no other instance of compilation, the
inference to be drawn might be uncertain. But
when even one instance of compilation has been
clearly established in a work, all other seeming
instances must be viewed in its light, and it would
be unreasonable to contest each of them singly, on
principles which imply that compilation is as un-
likely as it would be in a work of modern history.
It is to be added, that as the author and the
precise date of the book of Samuel are unknown,
its historical value is not impaired by its being
deemed to a certain extent a compilation. Indeed,
from one point of view, its value is in this ,way
somewhat enhanced ; as the probability is increased
of its containing documents of an early date, some
of which may have been written by persons con-
temporaneous, or nearly so, with the events de-
scribed.

Sources of (he Book of Samuel — Assuming that
the book is a compilation, it is a subject of rational
inquiry to ascertain the materials from which it
was composed. But our information on this head
is scanty. The only work actually quoted in this
book is the book of Jasher; i. e. the book of
the Upright. Notwithstanding the great learning
which has been brought to bear on this title by
numerous commentators [vol. ii. p. 1215], the
meaning of the title must be regarded as absolutely
unknown, and the character of the book itself as
uncertain. The best conjecture hitherto offered as
an induction from facts is, that it was a book of
Poems ; but the facts are too few to establish this

o Any Hebrew scholar who will write out the orig-
inal four lines commencing with "Sun, stand thou
still upon Gibeon I " may satisfy himself that they
belong to a poem. The last line, " Until the people
had avenged themselves upon their enemies," which
in the A. V. is somewhat heavy, is almost unmistak-
ably a line of poetry in the original. In a narrative
respecting the Israelites in prose they would not have

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

as a positive general conclusion. It is only quoted
twice in the whole Bible, once as a work containing
David's Lamentation over Saul and Jonathan (2
Sam. i. 18), and secondly, as an authority for the
statement that the sun and moon stood still at the
command of Joshua (Josh. x. 13). There can be
no doubt that the Lamentation of David is a poem ;
and it is most probable that the other passage
referred to as written in the book of Jasher in-
cludes four lines of Hebrew poetry," though the
poetical diction and rhythm of the original are
somewhat impaired in a translation. But the only
sound deduction from these facts is, that the book
of Jasher contained some poems. What else it
may have contained we cannot say, even nega-
tively. Without reference, however, to the book of
Jasher, the' book of Samuel cojitains several poetical
compositions, on each of which a few observations
may be offered: commencing with the poetry of
David.

(1.) David's Lamentation over Saul and Jona-
than, called " The Bow." This extremely beautiful
composition, which seems to have been preserved
through David's having caused it to be taught to
the children of Judah (2 Sam. i. 18), is universally
admitted to be the genuine production of David.
In this respect, it has an advantage over the
Psalms; as, owing to the unfortunate inaccuracy
of some of the inscriptions, no one of the psalms
attributed to David has wholly escaped challenge.
One point in the Lamentation especially merits
attention, that, contrary to what a later poet would
have ventured to represent, David, in the generosity
and tenderness of his nature, sounds the praises of
Saul.

(2.) David's Lamentation on the death of Abner
(2 Sam. iii. 33, 34). There is no reason to doubt
the genuineness of this short poetical ejaculation.

(3.) 2 Sam. xxii, A Song of David, which is
introduced with the inscription that David spoke
the words of the song to Jehovah, in the day that
Jehovah had delivered him out of the hand of all
his enemies and out of the hand of Saul. This
song, with a few unimportant verbal differences, is
merely the xviiith Psalm, which bears substantially
the same inscription. For poetical beauty, the
song is well worthy to be the production of David.
The following difficulties, however, are connected
with it.

(a.) The date of the composition is assigned to
the day when David had been delivered not only
out of the hand of all his enemies, but likewise
"out of the hand of Saul." Now David reigned
forty years after Saul's death (2 Sam. v. 4, 5), and
it was as king that he achieved the successive con-
quests to which allusion is made in the psalm.
Moreover, the psalm is evidently introduced as
composed at a late period of his life; and it imme-
diately precedes the twenty-third chapter, which
commences with the passage, "Now these be the
last words of David." It sounds strange, there-
fore, that the name of Saul should be introduced,
whose hostility, so far distant in time, had been

been described as "^12 (gOi), without even an article.
Moreover, there is no other instance in which the sim-
ple accusative of the person on whom vengeance is

taken is used after Dp3 (nakatn). In simple prose

^72 (min) intervenes, and, like the article, it may
have been here omitted for conciseness.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

condoned, as it were, by David in his noble Lamen-
tation.

(6.) In the closing verse (2 Sam. xxii. 51), Je-
hovah is spoken of as showing " mercy to his
anointed, unto David and his seed for evermore."
These words would be more naturally written of
David than by David. They n)ay, however, be a
later addition ; as it may be observed that at the
present day, notwithstanding the safeguard of print-
ing, the poetical writings of living authors are occa-
sionally altered, and it must l»e added disfigured,
in printed hymn-books. Still, as far as they go,
the words tend to raise a doubt whether the psalm
was written by David, as it cannot be proved that
they are an addition.

(c.) In some passages of the psalm, the strong-
est assertions are made of the poet's uprightness
and purity. He says of himself, " According to
the cleanness of my hands hath He recompensed
me. For I have kept the ways of Jehovah, and
have not wicketlly departed from my God. For all
his judgments were before me: and as for his
statutes, I did not depart from them. I was also
upright before Him, and have kept myself from
mine iniquity " (xxii. 21-24). Now it is a subject
of reasonable surprise that, at any period after the
painful incidents of his life in the matter of Uriah
David should have used this language concerning
himself. Admitting fully that, in consequence of
his sincere and bitter contrition, " the princely
heart of innocence " may have been freely bestowed
upon him, it is difficult to understand how this
should have hifluenced him so far in his assertions
respecting his own uprightness in past times, as to
make him forget that lie had once been betrayed
by his [)assion8 into adultery and murder. These
assertions, if made by David himself, would form
a striking contrast to the tender humility and self-
mistrust in connection with the same subject by
a great living genius of spotless character. (See
"Christian Year," 6/A SundUiy of lev Trinity — ad
Jinem. )

(4.) A song, called " last words of David " (2
Sara, xxiii. 2-7). According to the Inscription, it
was composed by " David the son of Jesse, the man
who was raised up on high, the anointed of the
God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel."
It is suggested by lUeek, and is in itself very prob-
able, that both the psiilm and the inscription were
taken from some collection of songs or psalms.
'J'here is not sufficient reason to deny that this song
is correctly ascribed to David.

(5.) One other song remains, which is perhaps
the most perplexing in the book of Samuel. This
is the Song of Hannah, a wife of Elkanah (1 Sam.
ii. 1-10). One difficulty arises from an allusion
in verse 10 to the existence of a king under Jeho-
vah, many years before the kingly power was
established among the Israelites. Another equally
great difficulty arises from the internal character
of the song. It purports to be written by one of
two wives as a song of thanksgiving for having
borne a child, after a long period of barrenness,
which had caused her to be looked down upon by
the other wife of her husband. But, deducting a
general allusion, in verse 5, to the barren having
borne seven, there is nothing in the song peculiarly
applicable to the supposed circumstances, and by
far the greater portion of it seems to be a song of
triumph for deliverance from powerful enemies in
battle (w. 1, 4, 10). Indeed, Thenius does not
hesitate to conjecture that it was written by David

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 2831

after he had slain Goliath, and the Philistines had
been defeated in a great battle {Exeyetisches Hand-
buch, p. 8). There is no historical warrant for
this supposition ; but the song is certainly more
appropriate to the victory of David over Goliath,
than to Hannah's having given birth to a child
under the circumstances detailed in the first chap-
ter of Samuel. It would, however, be equally
appropriate to some other great battles of the
Israelites.

In advancing a single step beyond the songs of
the book of Samuel, we enter into the region of
conjecture as to the materials which were at the
command of the author; and in points which arise
for consideration, we must be satisfied with a sus-
pense of judgment, or a slight balance of proba-
bilities. For example, it being plain that in some
instances there are two accounts of the same trans-
action, it is desirable to form an opinion whether
these were founded on distinct written documents,
or on distinct oral traditions. This point is open
to dispute; but the theory of written documents
seems preferable; as in the alternative of mere
oral traditions it would have been supereminently
unnatural even for a compiler to record them with-
out stating in his own person that there were differ-
ent traditions respecting the same event. Again,
the truthful simplicity and extraordinary vividness
of some portions of the book of Samuel naturally
suggest the idea that they were founded on con-
temporary documents or a |>eculiarly trustworthy
tradition. This applies specially to the account
of the combat between David and Goliath, which
has been the delight of successive generations,
which charms equally in diffi?rent ways the old and
the young, the learned and the illiterate, and which
tempts us to deem it certain that the account must
have proceeded from an eye-witness. On the other
hand, it is to be remembered that vividness of
description often depends more on the discerning
faculties of the narrator than on mere bodily
presence. "It is the mind that sees," so that 200
years after the meeting of the Long Parliament a
powerful imaginative writer shall ix)rtray Cromwell
more vividly than Ludlow, a contemporary who
knew him and conversed with him. Moreover,
Livy has described events of early Roman history
which educated men regard in their details as
imaginary ; and Defoe, Swift, and the authors of
The Arabian Nights have described events which
all men admit to be imaginary, with such seem-
ingly authentic details, with such a charm of
reality, movement, and spirit, that it is sometimes
only by a strong effort of reason that we escape
from the illusion that the narratives are true. In
the absence, therefore, of any external evidence on
this point, it is safer to suspend our judgment as
to whether any portion of the book of Samuel is
founded on the writing of a contemporary, or on a
tradition entitled to any peculiar credit. Perhaps
the two conjectures respecting the composition of
the book of Samuel which are most entitled to
consideration are — 1st. 'i'hat the list which it
contains of officers or public functionaries under
David is the result of contemporary registration;
and 2dly. That the book of Samuel was the com-
pilation of some one connected with the schools of
the prophets, or penetrated by their spirit. On
the first point, the reader is referred to such pas-
sages as 2 Sam. viii. 16-18, and xx. 23-26, in
regard to which one fact may be mentioned. It
has already been stated [King, vol. ii. p. 1540 b]

2832

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

that under the kiiij^s there existed an officer
called liecorder, Remembrancer, or Chronicler; in
Hebrew, mazkir. Now it ciui scarcely be a mere
accidental coincidence that such an officer is men-
tioned for the first time in David's rei<i;n, and that
it is precisely for David's reign that a list of public
functionaries is for the first time transmitted to
us. On the second point, it cannot but be ob-
served what prominence is given to prophets in
the history, as compared with priests and Levites.
This prominence is so decided, that it undoubtedly
contributed towards the formation of the uncritical
opinion that the book of Samuel was the produc-
tion of the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad.
This opinion is unsupported by external evidence,
and is contrary to internal evidence; but it is by
no means improbable that some writers among the
sons of the prophets recorded the actions of those
prophets. This would be peculiarly probable in
reference to Nathan's rebuke of David after the
murder of Uriah. Nathan here presents the image
of a prophet in its noblest and most attractive form.
Boldness, tenderness, inventiveness, and tact, were
combined in such admirable proportions, that a
prophet's functions, if always discharged in a sim-
ilar manner with equal discretion, would have been
acknowledged by all to be purely beneficent. In
his interposition there is a kind of ideal moral
beauty. In the schools of the prophets he doubt-
less held the place which St. Ambrose afterwards
held in the minds of priests for the exclusion of the
Eniperor Theodosius from the church at»Milan after
the massacre at Thessalonica. It may be added,
that the following circumstances are in accordance
with the suiiposition that the compiler of the book
of Samuel was connected with the schools of the
prophets. The designation of Jehovah as the
" Lord of Hosts," or God of Hosts, does not occur
in the Pentateuch, or in Joshua, or in Judges ; but
it occurs in the book of Samuel thirteen times. In
the book of Kings it occurs only seven times ; and
in the book of Chronicles, as far as this is an
original or independent work, it cannot be said to
occur at all, for although it is found in three pas-
sages, all of these are evidently copied from the
book of Samuel. (See 1 Chr. xi. 9 — in the orig-
inal, precisely the same words as in 2 Sam. v. 10;
and see 1 Chr. xvii. 7, 24, copied from 2 Sam. vii. 8,
26.) Now this phrase, though occurring so rarely
elsewhere in prose, that it occurs nearly twice as
often in the book of Samuel as in all the other
historical writings of the Old Testament put to-
gether, is a very favorite phrase in some of the
great prophetical writings. In Isaiah it occurs
sixty-two times (six times only in the chapters xl.-
Ixvi.), and in Jeremiah sixty-five times at least.
Again, the predominance of the idea of the pro-
phetical office in Samuel is shown by the very sub-
ordinate place assigned in it to the Levites. The
difference between the Chronicles and the book of

a It is worthy of note that the prophet Ezekiel never
uses the expression "Lord of Hosts." On the other
band, there is no mention of the Levites in the undis-
puted writings of Isaiah-

b Tacitus records it as a distinguishing custom of
the Jews, " corpora condere quani cremare, ex more
^gyptio " {Hist. v. 5). And it is certain that, in later
times, they buried dead bodies, and did not bum
them ; though, notwithstanding the instance in Gen.
I. 2, they did not, strictly speaking, embalm them,
like the Egyptians. And though it may be suspected.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

Samuel in this respect is even more strikhig than
their difTereiice in the use of the expression "Lord
of Hosts; " « though in a reverse proportion. In
the whole book of Sanmel the Levites are men-
tioned only twice (1 Sam. vi. 15; 2 Sam. xv. 24),
while in Chronicles they are mentioned about thirty
times in the first book alone, which contains the
history of David's reign.

In conclusion, it may be observed that it is very
instructive to direct the attention to the passages
in Samuel and the Chronicles which treat of the
same events, and, generally, to the manner in which
the life of David is treated in the two histories. A
compari.son of the two works tends to throw light
on the state of the Hebrew mind at the time when
the book of Samuel was written, compared with
the ideas prevalent among the Jews some hundred
years later, at the time of the compilation of the
Chronicles. Some passages correspond almost pre-
cisely word for word ; others agree, with slight but
significant alterations. In some cases there are
striking omissions ; in others there are no less re-
markable additions. Without attempting to ex-
haust the subject, some of the differences between
the two histories will be now briefly pointed out;
though at the same time it is to be borne in mind
that, in drawing inferences from them, it would be
useful to review likewise all the differences between
the Chronicles and the book of Kings.

1. In 1 Sam. xxxi. 12, it is stated that the men
of Jabesh Gilead took the body of Saul and the
bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan, and
came to Jabesh and burnt them there. The com-
piler of the Chronicles omits mention of the burn-
ing of their bodies, and, as it would seem, de-
signedly; for he says that the valiant men of
Jabesh Gilead buried the hones of Saul and his
sons under the oak in Jabesh; whereas if there
had been no burning, the natural expression would
have been to have spoken of burying their bodies,
instead of their bones. Perhaps the chronicler
objected so strongly to the burning of bodies that
he purposely refrained from recording such a fact
respecting the bodies of Saul and his sons, even
under the peculiar circumstances connected with
that incident.''

2. In the Chronicles it is assigned as one of the
causes of Saul's defeat that he had asked counsel
of one that had a familiar spirit, and "had not
inquired of Jehovah" (1 Chr. x. 13, 14); whereas
in Samuel it is expressly stated (1 Sam. xxviii. 6)
that Saul had inquired of Jehovah before he con-
sulted the witch of Endor, but that Jehovah had
not answered him either by dreams, or by Urim,
or by prophets.

3. The Chronicles make no mention of the civil
war between David and Ishbosheth the son of Saul,
nor of Abner's changing sides, nor his assassina-
tion by Joab, nor of the assassination of Ish-
bosheth by Kechab and Baanah (2 Sam. ii. 8-32,
iii., iv.).

it cannot be proved, that they ever burned their dead
in early times. The passage in Am. vi. 10 is ambig-
uous. It may merely refer to the burning of bodies,
as a sanitary precaution in a plague ; but it is not
undoubted that burning is alluded to See Fiirst s. v.

Pl'^D. The burning for Asa (2 Chr. xvi. 14) is dit-

ferent from the burning of his body. Compare J«r.
xxxiv. 6 ; 2 Chr. xxi. 19, 20 ; Joseph. Ant. xv. 3, § 4
De Bell. Jud. i. 33, § 9.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

4. David's adultery with T?atli-sheba, the ex-
posure of Uriah to certain death by David's orders,
the solemn rebulte of Nathan, and the penitence of
David, are all passed over in absolute silence in the
Chronicles (2 Sam. xi., xii. 1-25).

5. In the account given in Samuel (2 Sam. vi.
2-11) of David's removing the Ark from Kirjath-
jearim, no special mention is made of the priests
or Levites. David's companions are said, generally,
to have been "all the people that were with him,"
and '' all the house of Israel " are said to have
played before Jehovah on the occasion with all
manner of musical instruments. In the corre-
sponding passage of the Chronicles (1 Chr. xiii.
1-14) David is represented as having publicly pro-
posed to send an invitation to the priests and
Levites in their cities and "suburbs," and this is
said to have been assented to by all the congrega-
tion. Again, in the preparations which are made
for the reception of the Ark of the Covenant at
Jerusalem, nothing is said of the Invites in Sam-
uel; whereas in the Chronicles David is introduced
as saying that none ought to carry the Ark of
God l)ut the Levites ; the si)ecial numbers of the
Levites and of the children of Aaron are there
given; and names of Levites are specified as hav-
ing been appointed singers and players on musical
instruments in connection with the Ark (1 Chr.
XV., xvi. 1-G).

6. The incidetit of David's dancing in public
with all his might before Jehovah, when the Ark
was brought into Jerusalem, the censorious remarks
of his wife Michal on David's conduct, David's
answer, and Michal's punishment, are fully set
forth in Samuel (2 Sam. vi. 14-23); but the whole
subject is noticed in one verse only in Chronicles
(1 Chr. XV. 29). On the other hand, no mention
is made in Samuel of David's having composed a
psalm on this great event; whereas in Chronicles a
psalm is set forth which David is represented as
having delivered into the hand of Asaph and his
brethren on that day (1 Chr. xvi. 7-36). Of this
psalm the first fifteen verses are almost precisely
the same as in l*s. cv. 1-15. The next eleven
verses are the same as in Ps. xcvi. 1-11; and the
next three concluding verses are in Ps. cvi. 1, 47,
48. The last verse but one of this psalm (1 Chr.
xvi. 35) apjjears to have been written at ths'time
of the Captivity.

7. It is stated in Samuel that David in his con-
quest of Moab put to death two thirds either of
the inhabitants or of the Moabitish army (2 Sam.
viii. 2). This fact is omitted in Chronicles (1 Chr.
xviii. 2), though the words used therein in men-
tioning the conquest are so nearly identical with
the beginning and the end of the passage in Sam-
uel, that in the A. V. there is no difference in the
translation of the two texts, " And he smote Moab ;
and the Moabites became David's servants, and
brought gifts."

8. In 2 Sam. xxi. 19, it is stated that " there
was a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where

a * Th. Parker (De Wette, Introd. to the O. T. ii.
263) speaks of " an amusing mistake '' in 2 Sam.
xxiii. 21, as compared with 1 Chr. xi. 23. But there
is no foundation for this, unless it be his own singular
rendering, " a respectable man," where the Hebrew is

simply nSnp tt?"'S, " a man of appearance « (=

mvabilis visu), in the A. V. " a goodly man," because

precisely as defined in 1 Chr. xi. 23, he was very tall,

a man of stature, five cubits high," etc. H.

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF 2838

Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite
(in the original Beit /laUachmi), slew Goliath the
Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's
beam." In the parallel passage in the Chronicles
(1 Chr. XX. 5) it is stated that " Elhanan the son
of Jair slew Lachmi the brother of Goliath the
Gittite." Thus Lachmi, which in the former case
is merely part of an adjective describing Elhanan's
place of nativity, seems in the Chronicles to be
the substantive name of the man whom Elhanan
slew, and is so translated in the LXX. [Elha-
nan, i. 096 f.; Lah.mi, ii. 1581.]

9. In Samuel (2 Sam. xxiv. 1) it is stated that,
the anger of Jehovah having been kindled against
Israel, He moved David against them to give orders
for taking a census of the population. In the
Chronicles (1 Chr. xxi. 1) it is mentioned that
David was provoked to take a census of the popu-
lation by Satan. This last is the first and the
only instance in which the name of Saian is intro-
duced into any historical book of the Old Testa-
ment. In the Pentateuch Jehovah himself is
represented as hardening Pharaoh's heart (Ex. vii.
13), as in this passage of Samuel He is said to have
incited David to give orders for a census."

10. In the incidents connected with the three
days' pestilence uj)on Israel on account of the cen-
sus, some facts of a very remarkable character are
narrated in the Chronicles, which are not men-
tioned in the earlier history. Thus in Chronicles
it is stated of the Angel of Jehovah, that he stood
lietween the earth and the heaven, having a drawn
sword in his hand stretched over .Jerusalem ; that
afterwards Jehovah commanded the angel, and
that the angel put up again his sword into its
sheath^ (1 Chr. xxi. 15-27). It is further stated
(ver. 20) that Oman and his four sons hid them-
selves when they saw the angel: and that when
David (ver. 26) had built an altar to Jehovah, and
offered burnt-offerings to Him, Jehovah answered
him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt-
offering. Regarding all these circumstances there
is absolute silence in the corresponding chapter of
Samuel.

11. The Chronicles make no mention of the hor-
rible fact mentioned in the book of Samuel (2 Sara.
xxi. 3-9) that David permitted the Gibeonites to
sacrifice seven sons of Saul to Jehovah, as an atone-
ment for the injuries which the Gibeonites had for-
merly received from Saul. This barbarous act of
sui)erstition, which is not said to have been com-
manded by Jehovah (ver. 1), is one of the most
painful incidents in the life of David, and can
scarcely be explained otherwise than by the suppo-
sition either that David seized this opportunity to
rid himself of seven possible rival claimants to the
throne, or that he was, for a while at least, infected
by the baneful exanjple of the Phoenicians, who
endeavored to avert the supposed wrath of their
gods by human sacrifices [Phcenicia]. It was,
perhaps, wholly foreign to the ideas of the Jews
at the time when the book of Chronicles was com-
piled.

b The statue of .the archangel Michael on the top
of the mausoleum of Hadrian at Rome is in accordance
with the same idea. In a procession to St. Peter's,
during a pestilence, Gregory the Great saw the arch-
angel in a vision, as he is supposed to be represented
in the statue. It is owing to this that the fortress
subsequently had the name of the Castle of St. An-
gelo. See Murray's Handbook for Borne, p. 67, 6th
ed. 1862.

2834 SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

It only remains to add, that in the numerous
instances wherein there is a close \erbal agreement
between passages in Samuel and in the Chronicles,
the sound conclusion seems to be that the Chroni-
cles were copied from Samuel, and not that both
were copied from a common original. In a matter
of this kind, we must proceed upon recognized
principles of criticism. If a writer of the 3d or
4th century narrated events of Roman history al-
most precisely in the words of Livy, no critic would
hesitate to say that all such nairatives were copied
from Livy. It would be regarded as a very im-
probable hypothesis that they were copied from
documents to which Livy and the later historian
had equal access, especially when no proof what-
ever was adduced that any such original documents
were in existence at the time of the later historian.
The same principle applies to the relation in which
the Chronicles stand to the book of Samuel. There
is not a particle of proof that the original docu-
ments, or any one of them, on which the book of
Samuel was founded, were in existence at the time
when the Chronicles were compiled ; and in the ab-
sence of such proof, it must be taken for granted
that, where there is a close verbal correspondence
between the two works, the compiler of the Chron-
icles copied passages, more or less closely, from the
book of Samuel. At the same time it would be
unreasonable to deny, and it would be impossible
to disprove, that the compiler, in addition to the
book of Samuel, made use of other historical docu-
ments which are no longer in existence.

Literature. — The following list of Commen-
taries is given by De Wette: Serrarii, Seb.
Schmidii, Jo. Clerici, Maur. Commentt. ; Jo. Dru-
sii, Annotatt. in Locos diffic. Jos., Jud.^ et Sam.;
Victorini Strigelii, Comm. in Libr. Sam.^ R^g-i
et Paralipp., Lips. 1591, fol.: Casp. Sanctii,
Comm. in IV. Lib. Reg. et ParaUpp., 1624, fol.;
Hensler, Erlaiiterungen des L B. Sam. u. d. Sa-
lom. Denkspriiche, Hamburg, 1795. The best
modern Commentary seems to be that of Thenius,
Lxegetisches ffandbuch, Leipzig, 1842. In this
work there is an excellent Introduction, and an
interesting detailed comparison of the Hebrew text
in the Bible with the Translation of the LXX.
There are no Commentaries on Samuel in Rosen-
muller's great work, or in the Compendium of his
Sdiolia.

The date of the composition of the book of Sam-
uel and its authorship is discussed in all the ordi-
nary Introductions to the Old Testament — such
as those of Home, Havemick, Keil, De Wette,
which have been frequently cited in this work. To
these may be added the following works, which
have appeared since the first volume of this Dic-
tionary was printed: Bleek's Linltifung in das
Alte Testament, Berlin, 1800, pp. 355-3G8; Sta-
helin's Specielle Einleitung in die Kanonischen
Backer des Alten Testaments, Elberfeld, 1862, pp.
83-105; Davidson's Introduction to the Old Testa-
ment, London and Edinburgh, 1862, pp. 491-536.

E. T.

* The alleged " mistranslation " (see the article
above) of 1 Chr. xxix. 29, is of a technical rather
than a practical character. The same Hebrew word
is indeed rendered by different terms in English,
but only in order to express more clearly the dif-
ferent senses in which the Hebrew word must nec-
essarily be understood. " The history of David "
which is written somewhere, must of course take
history in the sense of biography ; while " the his-

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

tory of Samuel," in which it is written, must be
the written record. The passage certainly asserts
that the prophets mentioned did write an account
of David and his reign which was still extant in
the time of the writer of the book of Chronicles.
The question whether that account was the same
with our present books of Samuel turns upon the
probability or improbability of still another history
(beside Samuel and Chronicles) having been writ-
ten of the same events when one from such author-
ity was already in existence. Possibly the original
work may have been more full, and the present
books have been more or less abridged ; but in this
case they still remain substantially, contempora-
neous history.

The arguments given above in favor of an early
date of these books are entitled to more weight
than is there allowed to them ; especially the argu-
ment from the language does not require to be so
much qualified. The instances of pure Hebrew cited
as belonging to the time of the Captivity, with the
single exception of Ps. cxxxvii. (which is too brief to
support the inference from its language) all belong
to a much earlier date. At least, if the opinion of
Gesenius and some other scholars be considered an
oflfset to the solid arguments for their earlier date,
the question must be considered an open one; and
these books cannot therefore be legitimately re-
ferred to as evidence of compositions in pure He-
brew as late as the time of the Captivity.

On the other hand, the arguments in favor of a
comparatively late date require important qualifica-
tion. The expression in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, " where-
fore Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah
to this day," relied on to prove that the book could
not have been composed before the accession of
Rehoboam (b. c. 975), will not sustain the infer-
ence. Such a clause might be a marginal note,
crept uito the text; but this supposition is unnec-
essary. As Judah was the leading tribe, it is not
unlikely that kings of Judah was sometimes used
instead of kings of Israel to designate the mon-
archs, even before the secession. The contrary is
asserted above: " Before the secession, the designa-
tion of the kings was that they were kings of Is-
rael." But not one of the nine references given
happens to contain the exact expression. They are
all " king over Israel," or " king over all Is-
rael," and this is quite another matter when the
question is one of a precise title. There are indeed
three passages (none of which are given above) in
which the construction is the same as in the pres-
ent instance, the exact title " king of Israel " being
used, with the word king in Hebrew in construc-
tion with Israel (1 Sam. xxiv. 14, xxvi. 20, 2 Sam.
vi. 20). But those instances of this title along with
one of " kings of Judah " do not form a sufficient
basis for an induction. There is, too, a special
reason why " kings of Judah " should be here used.
Ziklag was one of the cities originally assigned to
Judah (Josh. xv. 31), and subsequently allotted
out of his territory to Simeon (xix. 5). When it
came back from the Philistines as the private prop-
erty of David and his descendants, it did not be-
long to the kings of Israel as such, but only to
those of the tribe of Judah, and particularly, it did
not pass to the inheritance of Simeon. The first
king was of the tribe of Benjamin ; then for two
years his son, of course a Beiijamite, reigned over
"all Israel" (1 Sam. ii. 9), while David reigned
only over Judah; during five more years David
continued to reign over Judah only, while the rec-

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

ord is silent as to the sovereignty over the other
tribes ; and then at last David became king over all.
Certainly it was natural in his reign to speak of
Ziklag as pertjiining " unto the kings of Judah."

It is truly said that from certain expressions in
the book " it is not certain that the writer lived
more than eighty years after the incidents to which
he alludes." It should have been added that these
expressions furnish no probable inference that the
writer lived more than ticenty years after the
events.

The " various traditions respecting the manner
in which Saul first became acquainted with David
(1 Sam. xvi. 14-23, xvii. 55-58), respecting the
manner of Sauls death (1 Sam. xxxi. 2-6, 8-13,
2 Sam. i. 2-12)," are easily shown to be quite har-
monious. It is evident that the passage in 1 Sam.
xvi. 18-23 is chronologically later than that in
xvii. 65-58 (or rather, xvii. 55-xviii. 9); for in the
latter David is represented as an unknown stripling,
while in the former (ver. 18) he is " a mighty val-
iant man, and a man of war, and prudent in mat-
ters," and accordingly in some chronological ar-
rangements, as in that of Townsend, the passage is
actually transposed, and there is then seen to be no
inconsistency whatever in the story. In the nar-
rative itself, however, the former passage is a nar-
ration by anticipation in order to complete without
interruption the narrative begun in ver. 14.

The other supposed inconsistency depends en-
tirely upon the assumed truthfulness of an Amalek-
ite who, according to his own story,- had just com-
mitted a great crime. His fabrication may have
been " clumsy and improbable," as lies are apt to
be; or it may have been, under the circumstances,
clever. His object was to curry favor with David
(cf. 2 Sam. iv. 10), and nothing seemed to him
more to the purpose than to say that in Saul's ex-
tremity he had himself actually dispatched him.
This he had to reconcile with facts as best he
could.

The theory of «• a compilation " has surely but
slight support in the mention of Saul's having been
filled with the spirit of prophecy at the only times
when he was brought into close contact with the
company of the prophets, and of his having twice
fallen into the ix)wer of David. There is nothing
surprising in the foct that both these events should
have occurred twice in the life of Saul; and even
were the accounts of them given in separate books,
they are yet so clearly distinguished in time and in
differing circumstances, that we should still be
compelled to rei^ard them as separate events.

There is nothing then to forbid, but much to fa-
vor, the supposition that the earlier part of the
books of Samuel was written by the prophet of
that name, and the later parts by his successors in
the prophetic office, Nathan and Gad ; or at least
that they wrote the original history, of which the
present books, if an abridgment at all, must have
been an authorized abridgment, since none other
would have been likely to supplant the original.

In compiring the narrative of Samuel with that
of Chronicles, eleven points of difference are men-
tioned, two or three of which are worthy of further
attention. The first instance may well be classed
among those " undesigned coincidences " which so
beautifully illustrate the trustworthiness of the
Scripture narratives. In Chronicles no mention is
made of the burning of the bodies of Saul and his
sons recorded by Samuel; yet the fact is recog-
nized in saying that the men of Jabesh Gilead

SANBALLAT

2835

buried — not their bodies, but only — their bones.
In the second instance both accounts agree in the
fact, although there is a superficial verbal opposi-
tion in the manner of stating it. Both assert that
Saul did not obtain counsel of the Lord, Samuel
only mentioning that he vainly attempted to do so.
The fact is thus expressed by Samuel: he inquired,
but obtained no answer because of his wicked heart,
which led him into the further sin of inquirino' of
the witch of Endor; the same fact is more briefly
expressed in Chronicles by saying that he sinned in
not inquiring of the Lord {i. e. in acting without
his counsel), but seeking counsel of the witch.
Most of the other instances are merely the fuller
relation of events by one or other of the writers,
showing that the author of Chronicles had access
to other sources of Information in addition to our
present books of Samuel, and that he did not think
it necessary to transcribe everything he found in
that book.

We dissent from the representation, under the
11th head, of the event narrated in 2 Sam. xxi.
3-9, as a human sacrifice to .Jehovah. It was such
in the same sense in which the destruction of the
Canaanites, or any other guilty people, was a sac-
rifice. Saul had broken the ancient treaty with
the Gibeonites, and for this sin God afflicted the
land. To remove the famine David offered the
Gibeonites any satisfaction they might demand,
and they chose to have seven of Saul's descendants
given up to them. These they hung » up unto the
Lord in Gibeah," not with the remotest idea of a
sacrifice to Him; but as a public token that they
were themselves appeased. If this punishment of
Saul's sins upon his descendants incidentally re-
moved a danger from David's throne, it was an ad-
vantage not of his own devising, but brought about
by the sin and cruelty of Saul rankling in the
minds of the Gibeonites. F. G.

* Becent LUerature. — On the books of Samuel,
we may also refer to Palfrey's Led, on the Jewish
Scnpturcs,u. 236-300, iii. 1-43 (Boston, 1840-52);
Nagelsbach,art. Samuelis, Biicher, in Herzog's Ae«/-
Encykl. xiii. 400-412 (Gotha, 1860); and Kuenen,
Hist. crit. lies livres de VAncien Test, i. 374-399,
567-580 (Paris, 1866); — Ewald, Gesch.des Volkes
Israel, 3e Ausg., Bde. ii., iii.; and Stanley, Hist, o/
the Jeioish Church, vols, i., ii. The latest commen-
taries are by Keil, Die Bucher Samuels, I^ipz.
1864 (Theil ii. Bd. ii. of the Bibl. Comm. by Keil
and Delitzsch), Eng. trans. Edinb. 1866 (Clark's
For. Theol. Libr.), and Wordsworth, Holy Bible,
icith Notes and Introductions, vol. ii. pt. ii. (Lond.
1866). A new edition of Thenius's conmientary
{Kurzgef. exeg. Ilandb. iv.) was published in 1864.
Other works illustrating these books are referred to
under Chronicles and Kings. A.

SANABAS'SAR (Sa/xovt^o-o-apoy ; Alex. 2a-
ya&da-a-apos • S(dmanasarus). Sheshbazzar
(1 F^dr. ii. 12, 15; comp. Ezr. i. 8, 11).

SANABAS'SARUS {:Sa^avd(r<rapos; Alex.
'S.ava^da-a-apos ■ Salmnnasarus). Sheshbazzar
(1 Esdr. vi. 18, 20; comp. Ezr. v. 14, 16).

SAN'ASIB iS.avaai^; [Vat. ^ava^^is; Aid.
2oi/oo-6J)8 ;] Alex. Avaareifi: Eliasib). The sons
of Jeddu, the son of Jesus, are reckoned " among
the sons of Sanasib," as priests who returned with
Zorobabel (1 Esdr. v. 24).

SANBAL'LAT (t^^D?? : %avafiaKKdr;
[FA. Sova/SaAaT, etc. :] Sanabnllat). Of uncer-
tain etymology; according to Gesenius after Von

2836 SANBALLAT

Bohlen, meaning in Sanskrit " giving strength to
the army," but according to Fiirst " a chestnut
tree." A Moabite of Horonaim, as appears by his
designation " Sanballat the Horonite " (Neh. ii.
10, 19, xiii. 28). All that we know of him from
Scripture is that he had apparently some civil or
miUtary command in Samaria, in the service of
Artaxerxes (Neh. iv. 2), and that, from the mo-
ment of Nehemiah's arrival in Judaea, he set him-
self to oppose every measure for the welfare of Je-
rusalem, and was a constant adversary to the
Tirshatha. His companions in this hostility were
Tobiah the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian
(Neh. ii. 19, iv. 7). For the details of their oppo-
sition the reader is referred to the articles Nehe-
MiAH and Nehemiah, B.ook of, and to Neh. vi.,
where the enmity between Sanballat and the Jews
is brought out in the strongest colors. The only
other incident in his life is his alliance with the
high-priest's family, by the marriage of his daugh-
ter with one of the grandsons of Eliashib, which,
from the similar connection formed by Tobiah the
Ammonite (Neh. xiii. 4), appears to have been part
of a settled policy concerted between Eliashib and
the Samaritan faction. The expulsion from the
priesthood of the guilty son of Joiada by Nehemiah
must have still further widened the breach between
him and Sanballat, and between the two parties
in the Jewish state. Here, however, the Scriptural
nari-ative ends — owing, probably, to Nehemiah's
return to Persia — and with it likewise our knowl-
edge of Sanballat.

But on turning to the pages of Josephus a
wholly new set of actions, in a totally different
time, is brought before us in connection with San-
ballat, while his name is entirely omitted in the ac-
count there given of the government of Nehemiah,
which is placed in the reign of Xei'xes. Josephus,
after interposing the whole reign of Artaxerxes
Ivongimanus between the death of Nehemiah and
the transactions in which Sanballat took part, and
utterly ignoring the very existence of Darius Nothus,
Artaxerxes Mnemon, Ochus, etc., jumps at once to
the reign of " Darius the last king," and tells us
(A7it. xi. 7, § 2) that Sanballat was his officer in
Samaria, that he was a Cuthean, i. e. a Samaritan,
by birth, and that he gave his daughter Nicaso in
marriage to Manasseh, the brother of the high-
priest Jaddua, and consequently the fourth in de-
scent from Eliashib, who was high-priest in the
time of Nehemiah. He then relates that on the
threat of his brother Jaddua and the other Jews to
expel him from the priesthood unless he divorced
his wife, Manasseh stated the case to Sanballat, who
thereupon promised to use his influence with king
Darius, not only to give him Sanballat's govern-
ment, but to sanction the building of a rival temple
on Mount Gerizim, of which Manasseh should be
the high-priest. Manasseh on this agreed to retain
his wife and join Sanballat's faction, which was fur-
ther strengthened by the accession of all those
priests and Levites (and they were many) who had
taken strange wives. But just at this time hap-
pened the invasion of Alexander the Great; and

SANDAL

Sanballat, with 7,000 men, joined him, and
nounced his allegiance to Darius (Ant. xi. 8, §
Being favorably received by the conqueror, he took
the opportunity of speaking to him in behalf of
Manasseh. He represented to him how much it was
for his interest to divide the strength of the Jew-
ish nation, and how many there were who wished
for a temple in Samaria; and so obtained Alexan-
der's permission to build the temple on Mount
Gerizim, and make Manasseh the hereditary high-
priest. Shortly after this, Sanballat died ; but the
temple on Mount Gerizim remained, and the She-
chemites, as they were called, continued also as a
permanent schism, which was continually fed by all
the lawless and disaffected Jews. Such is Josephus'
account. If there is any truth in it, of course the
Sanballat of whom he speaks is a different person
from the Sanballat of Nehemiah, who flourished
fully one hundred years earlier; but when we put
together Josephus' silence concerning a Sanballat
in Nehemiah's time, and the many coincidences in
the lives of the Sanballat of Nehemiah and that of
Josephus, together with the inconsistencies in Jose-
phus' narrative (pointed out by Prideaux, Connect.
i. 466, 288, 290), and its disagreement with what
Eusebius tells of the relations of Alexander with
Samaria « {Chron. Can. lib. post. p. 346), and re-
member how apt Josephus is to follow any narra-
tive, no matter how anachronistic and inconsistent
with Scripture, we shall have no difficulty in con-
cluding that his account of Sanballat is not histor-
ical. It is doubtless taken from some apocryphal
romance, now lost, in which the writer, living under
the empire of the Greeks, and at a time when the
enmity of the Jews and Samaritans was at its
height,'' chose the downfall of the Pei'sian empire
for the ejjoch, and Sanballat for the ideal instru-
ment, of the consolidation of the Samaritan Church
and the erection of the temple on Gerizim. To bor-
row events from some Scripture narrative and intro-
duce some Scriptural personage, without any regard
to chronology or other propriety, was the regular
method of such apocryphal books. See 1 Esdras,
apocryphal P^sther, apocryphal additions to the
book of Daniel, and the articles on them, and the
story inserted by the LXX. after 2 K. xii 24, &c ,
with the observations on it in the art. Kings, vol. ii.
p. 1550. To receive as historical Josephus' narra-
tive of the building of the Samaritan temple by
Sanballat, circumstantial as it is in its account of
Manasseh's relationship to Jaddua, and Sanballat's
intercourse with both Darius Codomanus and Alex-
ander the Great, and yet to transplant it, as Pri-
deaux does, to the time of Darius Nothus (b. c.
409), seems scarcely compatible with sound criti-
cism. For a further discussion of this subject, see
the article Nehemiah, Book of, iii. 2096 ; Pri-
deaux, Connect, i. 395-396 ; Geneal. of our Lord,
p. 323, (fee. ; Mill's Vindic. of our Loi-d's Geneal.
p. 165 ; Hales' Atmlys. ii. 534. A. C. H.

* SANCTUARY. [Tabernacle ; Tem-
ple.]

SANDAL (br3 : {,Tr6Sr]iiia, (xauSdXiov). The

a He says that Alexander appointed Andromachus
govex-nor of Judaea and the neighboring districts ; that
tiie Samaritans murdered him ; and that Alexander on
his return took Samaria in revenge, and settled a col-
ony of Macedonians in it, and the inhabitants of Sa-
maria retired to Sichem.

b Such a time, e. g., as when the book of Ecclesias-

ticus was written, in which we read (ch. 1. 25, 26),
" There be two manner of nations which mine heart
abhorreth, and the third is no nation : they that sit
upon the mountam of Samaria, and they that dwell
among the Philistines, and that foolish people that
dwell in Sichem."

SANDAL

sandal appears to have leen the article ordinarily
used by the Hebrews for protecting the feet. It
consisted simply of a sole attached to the foot by
thongs. The Hebrew term na\tl « implies such an
article, its proper sense being that of confining or
shutting ill the foot with thongs: we have also

express notice of the thong * (Tf^"1lp: l/xois' A.V.
"shoe-latchet") in several passages (Gen. xiv. 23;
Is. V. 27; Mark i. 7). The Greek term inr6dr]iJ.a
properly applies to the sandal exclusively, as it
means what is bound under the foot; but no stress
can be laid on the use of the term by the Alexan-
drine writers, as it was applied to any covering of
the foot, even to the military califja of the Romans
(Joseph. B. J. vi. 1, § 8). A similar observation
applies to crauZaKiov, which is used in a general,
and not in its strictly classical sense, and was
adopted in a Hebraized form by the Talmudists.
We have no description of the sandal in the Bible
itself, but the deficiency can be supplied from col-
lateral sources. Thus we learn from the Talmud-
ists tliat the materials employed in the construction
of the sole were either leather, felt, cloth, or wood
(.Mishn. Jtu^ua. 12, §§ 1, 2), and that it was occa-

Egyptian Sandals.

sionally shod with iron {Snhb. 6, § 2). In Egypt
various fibrous substances, such as palm leaves and
papyrus stalks, were used in addition to leather
(Herod, ii. 37; Wilkinson, ii. 332, 333), while in
Assyria, wood or leather was employed (I^yard,
Nln. ii. 323, 324). In Esrypt the sartdals were
usually turned up at the toe like our skates, though
other forms, rounded and pointed, are also exhib-
ited. In Assyria the heel and the side of the foot
were encased, and sometimes the sandal consisted
of little else than this. This does not appear to
have been the case in Palestine, for a heel-strap was
essential to a proper sandal (Jebani. 12, § 1).
Great attention was paid by the ladies to their san-
dals; they were made of the skin of an animal
named tackash (Ez. xvi. 10), whether a hyena or
a seal (A. V. " badger") is doubtful: the skins of
a fish (a species of Halicore) are used for this pur

a In the A. V. this term is invariably rendered
"shoes." There is, however, little reason to think
that the Jews really wore shoes, and the expressions
which Carpzov (Apparat. pp. 781, 782) quotes to prove
that they did — (namely, " put the blood of war in
his shoes," 1 K. ii. 5 ; " make men go over in shoes,"
Is. xi. 15), are equally adapted to the sandal — the
first signifying that the blood was sprinkled on the
thong of the sandal, the second that men should cross
the river on foot instead of in boats. The shoes found
in Egypt probably belonged to Greeks (Wilkinson, ii.
333).

SANDAL 2837

pose in the peninsula of Sinai (Robinson, Bill. Res.
i. 116). The thongs were handsomely embroidered
(Cant. vii. 1; Jud. x. 4, xvi. 9), as were those of
the Greek ladies {Diet, of Ant. s. v. " Sanda-
lium "). Sandals were worn by all classes of soci-
ety in Palestine, even by the very poor (Am. viii.
6), and both the sandal and the thong or shoe-
latchet were so cheap and common, that they passed
into a proverb for the most insignificant thing (Cien.

Assyrian Sandals. (From Layard, ii. 234.)

xiv. 23; Ecclus. xlvi. 19). They were not, how-
ever, worn at all {jeriods ; they were dispensed with
in-doors, and were only put on by persons about to
undertake some business away from their homes;
such as a miliUxry expedition (Is. v. 27; Eph. vi.
15), or a journey (Ex. xii. 11; Josh. ix. 5, 13;
Acts xii. 8): on such occasions persons carried an
extra pair, a practice which our Lord objected to as
far as the Apostles were concerned (Matt. x. 10;
comp. Mark vi. 9, and the expression in Luke x. 4,
" do not carry," which harmonizes the passages).
An extra pair might in certain cases be needed, as
the soles were liable to be soon worn out (Josh. ix.
5), or the thongs to be broken (Is. v. 27). During
meal-times the feet were undoubtedly uncovered, as
implied in Luke vii. 38; John xiii. 5, 6, and in the
exception specially made in reference to the Paschal
feast (Ex. xii. 11): the same custom must have
prevailed wherever reclining at meals was practiced
(comp. Plato, Symix)s. p. 213). It was a mark of
reverence to cast off the shoes in approaching a
place or person of eminent sanctity : <^ hence the
command to Moses at the bush (Ex. iii. 5) and to
Joshua in the presence of the angel (Josh. v. 15).
In deference to these injunctions the priests are
said to have conducted their ministrations in the
Temple barefoot (Theodoret, ad Ex. iii. qwzst. 7),
and the Talmudists even forbade any person to pass
through the Temple with shoes on (Mishn. Berach.
9, § 5). This reverential act was not peculiar to
the Jews: in ancient times we have instances of it
in the worship of Cybele at Rome (Prudent. Peris.
154), in the worship of Isis as represented in a pic-
ture at Herculaneum {Ant. d" Ercol. ii. 320), and
in the practice of the Egyptian priests, according

ft The terms applie4 to the removal of the shoe
(^bn, Deut. XXV. 10 ; Is. xx. 2 ; and ^btt?, Ruth

iv. 7) imply that the thongs were either so numerous
or so broad as almost to cover the top of the foot.

c It is worthy of observation that the term used
for " putting off " the shoes on these occasions is pe-
culiar (btt?3), and conveys the notion of violence
and haste.

2838 SANHEDRIM

to Sil. Itiil. iii. 28. In modern times we may com-
pare the similar practice of the Mohammedans of
Palestine before entering a mosque (Robinson's
Jiesearches, ii. 36), and particularly before entering
the Kaaba at Mecca (Burckhardfs Arabia, i, 270),
of the Yezidis of Mesopotamia before entering the
tomb of their patron saint (Layard's Nin. i. 282),
and of the Samaritans as they tread the summit of
Mount Gerizim (Robinson, ii. 278). 'Vhe practice
of the modern Egyptians, who take off their shoes
before stepping on to the carpeted Itetcdn, appears
to be dictated by a feeling of reverence rather than
cleanliness, that spot being devoted to prayer (Lane,
i. 35). It was also an indication of violent emo-
tion, or of mourning, if a person appeared barefoot
in public (2 Sam. xv. 30; Is. xx. 2: Ez. xxiv. 17,
23). This again was held in common with other
nations, as instanced at the funeral of Augustus
(Suet. Aug. 100), and on the occasion of the sol-
emn processions which derived their name of Nudi-
pedalia from this feature (Tertull. Apol. 40). To
carry or to unloose a person's sandal was a menial
office betokening great inferiority on the part of the
person performing it; it was hence selected by
John the Baptist to express his relation to the
Messiah (Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 7; John i. 27;
Acts xiii. 25). The expression in Ps. Ix. 8, cviii.

9, " over Edom will I cast out my shoe," evidently
signifies the subjection of that country, but the
exact point of the comparison is obscure ; for it may
refer either to the custom of handing a sandal to a
slave, or to that of claiming possession of a property
by planting the foot on it, or of acquiring it by the
symbolic action of casting the shoe, or again, Edom
may be regarded in the still more subordinate posi-
tion of a shelf on which the sandals were rested
while their owner bathed his feet. The use of the
shoe in the transfer of property is noticed in Ruth
iv. 7, 8, and a similar significancy was attached to
the act in connection with the repudiation of a Le-
virate marriage (Ueut. xxv. 9). Shoe-making, or
rather strap-making {i. e. making the straps for the
sandals), was a recognized trade among the Jews
(Mishn. Pesach. 4, § 6). W. L. B.

SAN'HEDRIM (accurately Sanhedrin,

^"^"^inip, formed from aweSpiov: the attempts
of the Rabbins to find a Hebrew etymology are
idle; Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. s. v.), called also in the
Talmud the great Sanhedrin, the supreme council
of the Jewish people in the time of Christ and

earlier. In the Mishna it is also styled ^"^"^ H'^S,

Beth Din, «« house of judgment."

1. The (nigin of this assembly is traced in the
Mishna (Sanhedr. i. 6) to the seventy elders
whom Moses was directed (Num. xi. 16, 17) to
associate with him in the government of the Israel-
ites. This body continued to exist, according to
the Rabbinical accounts, down to the close of the
Jewish commonwealth. Among Christian writers
Schickhard, Isaac Casaubon, Salmasius, Selden,
and Grotius have held the same view. Since the
time of Vorstius, who took the ground (De Syn-
hedriis, §§ 25-40) that the alleged identity between
the assembly of seventy elders mentioned in Num.
xi. 16, 17, and the Sanhedrim which existed in
the later period of the Jewish commonwealth, was
simply a conjecture of the Rabbins, and that there
are no traces of such a tribunal in Deut. xvii. 8,

10, nor in the age of Joshua and the Judges, nor
during the reign of the kings, it has been gener-

SANHEDRIM

ally admitted that the tribunal established by
Moses was probably temporary, and did not con-
tinue to exist after the Israelites had entered Pal-
estine (Winer, Itealworterb. art. " Synedrium ").

In the lack of definite historical information as
to the establishment of the Sanhedrim, it can only
be said in general that the Greek etymology of the
name seems to point to a period subsequent to the
Macedonian supremacy in Palestine. Livy ex-
pressly states (xiv. 32), " pronuntiatum quod ad
statum Macedoniae pertinebat, senatores, quos syne-
dros vocant, legendos esse, quorum consilio respub-
lica administraretur." The fact that Herod, when
procurator of Galilee, was summoned before the
Sanhedrim (b. c. 47) on the ground that in put-
ting men to death he had usurped the authority
of the body (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 9, § 4) shows that
it then possessed much power and was not of very
recent origin. If the y^povaia rSsv 'lovSaiwv,
in 2 Mace. i. 10, iv. 44, xi. 27, designates the San-
hedrim — as it probably does — this is the earliest
historical trace of its existence. On these grounds
the opinion of Vorstius, Witsius, Winer, Keil,
and others, may be regarded as probable, that the
Sanhedrim described in the Talmud arose after
the return of the Jews from Babylon, and in the
time of the Seleucidae or of the Hasmonean
princes.

In the silence of Philo, Josephus, and the Mishna,
respecting the constitution of the Sanhedrim, we
are obliged to depend upon the few incidental no-
tices in the New Testament. From these we gather
that it consisted of apxi^peTs, chief priests, or the
heads of the twenty-four classes into which the m
priests were divided (including probably those who ■jj
had been high-priests), Trp^crfivrepot, elders, men of H
age and experience, and ypa/jL/maTeTs, scribes, law-
yers, or those learned in the Jewish law (Matt,
xxvi. 57, 59; Mark xv. 1; Luke xxii. 66; Acts
V. 21).

2, The number of members is usually given as
seventy-one, but this is a point on which there is
not a perfect agreement among the learned. The
nearly unanimous opinion of the Jews is given in
the Mishna {Sanhedr. \. 6): "the great Sanhe-
drim consisted of seventy-one judges. How is this
proved? From Num. xi. 16, where it is said,
'gather unto me seventy men of the elders of
Israel.' To these add Moses, and we have seventy-
one. Nevertheless R. Judah says there were
seventy." The same difference made by the addi-
tion or exclusion of Moses, appears in the works
of Christian writers, which accounts for the varia-
tions in the books between seventy and seventy-
one. Baronius, however {Ad. Ann. 31, § 10), and
many other Roman Catholic writers, together with
not a few Protestants, as Drusius, Grotius, Pri-
deaux, Jahn, Bretschneider, etc., hold that the
true number was seventy-two, on the ground that
Eldad and Medad, on whom it is expressly said the
Spirit rested (Num. xi. 26), remained in the camp
and- should be added to the seventy (see Hartmann,
Verbindung des A. T. p. 182; Selden, De Synedr.
lib. ii. cap. 4). Between these three numbers,
that given by the prevalent Jewish tradition is cer-
tainly to be preferred; but if, as we have seen,
there is really no evidence for the identity of the
seventy elders summoned by Moses, and the
Sanhedrim existing after the Babylonish Captivity,
the argument from Num. xi. 16 in respect to the
number of members of which the latter body con-
sisted, has no force, and we are left, as Keil main-

SANHEDRIM

tains (Archdologie, ii. § 259), without any certain
information on tlie point.

The president of this body was styled M"^^5'
Nasi, and, according to Maimonides and Lightfoot,
was chosen on account of his eminence in worth
and wisdom. Often, if not generally, this pre-
eminence was accorded to the high-priest. That
the high-priest presided at the condemnation of
Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 62) is plain from the narra-
tive. The vice-president, called in the Talmud

I'^l iVZL 2S, "father of the house of judg-
ment," sat at the right hand of the president.
Some writers speak of a second vice-president, styled

DDH, "wise," but this is not sufficiently con-
firmed (see Seidell, De Sijnedr. p. 156 ff.). The
Babylonian Gemara states that there were two
scribes, one of whom registered the votes for ac-
quitUil, the other those for condemnation. In Matt,
xxvi. 58; Mark xiv. 54, &c., the lictors or attend-
ants of the Sanhedrim are referred to under the
name of wrrjpeTai- While in session the Sanhe-
drim sat in the form of a half-circle {Gem. Hieros.
Const, vii. ad Sanhedr. i.), with all -which agrees
the statement of Maimonides (quoted by Vor-
stius): •' him who excels all others in wisdom they
appoint head over them and head of the assembly.
And he it is whom the wise everywhere call Nasi,
and he is in the place of our master Moses. Like-
wise him who is the oldest among the seventy, they
place on the right hand, and him they call ' father
of the house of judirment.' The rest of the
seventy sit before these two, according to their
dignity, in the form of a semicircle, so that the
president and vice-president may have them all in
sight."

3. The place in which the sessions of the San-
hedrim were ordinarily held was, according to the

Talmud, a hall called H^-t?, Gnzzith (Sanhedr. x.),
supposed by Lightfoot ( Works, i. 2005) to have
been situated in the southeast corner of one of the
courts near the Temple building. In special exi-
gencies, however, it seems to have met in the resi-
dence of the high-priest (Matt. xxvi. 3). Forty
years before the destruction of Jenisalem, and con-
sequently while the Saviour was teaching in Pales-
tine, the sessions of the Sanhedrim were removed
from the hall Gazzith to a somewhat greater dis-
tance from the Temple building, although still on
Mt. Moriah (Abod. Zara, i. Gem. Babyl. ad San-
hedr. v.). After several other changes, its seat was
finally established at Tiberias (Lightfoot, Wm-ks,
ii. 365).

As a judicial body the Sanhedrim constituted a
supreme court, to which belonged in the first
instance the trial of a tribe fallen into idolatry,
false prophets, and the high-priest (Mishna, Suti-
hedr. i.); also the other priests {Middoth, v.).
As an administrative council it determined other
important matters. Jesus was arraigned before
this body as a false prophet (.John xi. 47), and
Peter, John, Stephen, and Paul as teachers of
error and deceivers of the people. From Acts ix.
2 it appears that the Sanhedrim exercised a degree
of authority beyond the limits of Palestine. Ac-
cording to the Jerusalem Gemara (quoted by
Selden, lib. ii. c. 15, 11), the power of inflicting
capital punishment was taken away from this tri-
bunal forty years before the destruction of Jerusa-
lem. With this agrees the answer of the Jews to
Pilate (John xviii. 31), » It is not lawful for us to

SANSANNAH 2839

put any man to death." Beyond the arrest, trial,
and condemnation of one convicted of violating the
ecclesiastical law, the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim
at the time could not be extended ; the confirma-
tion and execution of the sentence in capital cases
belonged to the Roman procurator. The stoning
of Stephen (Acts vii. 56, &c.) is only an apparent
exception, for it was either a tumultuous proceed-
ure, or, if done by order of the Sanhedrim, was
an illegal assumption of power, as Josephus {Ant.
XX. 9, § 1) expressly declares the execution of the
Apostle James during the absence of the procura-
tor to have been (AViner, Rtalwh. art. " Syne-
drium").

The Talmud also mentions a lesser Sanhednm
of twenty-three members in every city in Palestine
in which were not less than 120 householders; but
respecting these judicial bodies Josephus is entirely
silent.

The leading work on the subject is Selden, De
Synedi'iis et Pnefecturis Juridicis vtterum Ebrm-
orum, Lond. 1650, Amst. 1679, 4to. It exhibits
inunense learning, but introduces much irrelevant
matter, and is written in a heavy and unattractive
style. The monographs of Vorstius and Witsius,
contained in Ugolini's Thesaurus, vol. xxv., are
able and judicious. The same volume of Ugolini
contains also the Jerusalem and Babylonian Ge-
maras, along with the Mishna on the Sanhedrim,
with which may be compared Dwi Tiluli Tahmidici
Sanhedrin et Maccoih, ed. Jo. Coch, Amst. 1629,
4to, and Maimonides, De Sanhedriis et Poems,
ed. Routing. Amst. 1695, 4to. Hartmann, Die
Verbinduru/ des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen,
Hamb. 18-31, 8vo, is worthy of consultation, and
for a compressed exhibition of the subject, Winer,
Realwb., and Keil, Archceologie. G. E. D.

SANSAN'NAH (n3p5p [ palm-branch, Ges.,
Burst]: ^edevvaK; Alex, ^avaavua' Sensenna).
One of the towns in the south district of Judah,
named in Josh. xv. 31 only. The towns of this
district are not distributed into small groups, like
those of the highlands or the Shefelak ; and as
only very few of them have been yet identified, we
have nothing to guide us to the position of San-
sannah. It can hardly have had any connection
with Kirjath-Sannah (Kiijath-Sepher, or De-
bir), which was probably near Hebron, many miles
to the north of the most northern position possible
for Sansannah. It does not appear to be men-
tioned by any explorer, ancient or modern. Ge-
senius (Thes. p. 962) explains the name to mean
" palm-branch; " but this is contradicted by Fiirst
(Hivb. ii. 88), who derives it from a root which
signifies "writing." The two propositions are
probably equally wide of the mark. The conjec-
ture of Schwarz that it was at Simsim, on the val-
ley of the same name, is less feasible than usual.

The termination of the name is singular (comp.
Madmannah).

By comparing the list of Josh. xv. 26-32 with
those in xix. 2-7 and 1 Chr. iv. 28-33, it will be
seen that Befch-marcaboth and Hazar-susim, or
-susah, occupy in the two last the place of Mad-
mannah and Sansannah respectively in the first.
In like manner Shilhim is exchanged for Sharuhen
and Shaaraim. It is difficult to believe that these
changes can have arisen from the mistakes of
copyists solely, but equally difficult to assign any
other satisfactory reason. Prof. Stanley has sug-
gested that Beth-marcaboth and Hazar-susim are

2840 SAPH

tokens of the trade in chariots and horses which
arose in Solomon's time ; but, if so, how comes it
that the new names bear so close a resemblance in
form to the old ones ? G.

SAPH (^P [threshold, dish, Ges.]: 26>;
Alex. 5e<^e : Soph). One of the sons of the giant
('Patpd, Arnpha) slain by Sibbechai the Husha-
thite in the battle against the Philistines at Gob
or Gaza (2 Sam. xxi. 18). In 1 Chr. xx. 4 he is
called SiPPAi. The title of Ps. cxliii. in the
Peshito Syriac is, "Of David: when he slew
Asaph (Saph) the brother of Gulyad (Goliath),
and thanksgiving for that he had conquered."

SATHAT (2a</)(iT: om. in the Vulg.). She-
PHATIAH 2 (1 Esdr. V. 9 ; comp. Ezr. ii. 4).

SAPHATFAS {•2.a<paTias\ [Vat. 2o<^OTias:]
Saphatias). Shephatiah 2 (1 Esdr. viii. 34;
comp. Ezr. viii. 8).

SA'PHETH (2a(^u-f; [Vat. 2a</)vet: Aid.
2o<^€^:] Alex, ^acpvdi: Sepheyi). Shephatiah
(1 Esdr. V. 33; comp. Ezr. ii. 57).

SA'PHIR (~l*'St^, [i- e. Shaphir,/az>, beau-
tiful]: KaXwS' pulchra, but in Jerome's Co?n-
vient. Saphir). One of the villages addressed by
the prophet Micah (i. 11), but not elsewhere men-
tioned. By Eusebius and Jerome {Onomast.
"Saphir") it is described as " hi the mountain
district between Eleutheropolis and Ascalon." In
this direction a village called es-SawdJir still exists
(or rather three with that name, two with affixes),
possibly the representative of the ancient Saphir
(Rob. Bibl. Res. ii. 34 note ; Van de Velde, Syr.
4' Pal. p. 159 ). Es-Sawajir lies seven or eight miles
to the N. E. of Ascalon, and about 12 W.^of Beit-
Jibrin, to the right of the coast road from Gaza.
Tobler prefers a village called Saber, close to Sn-
wafir, containing a copious and apparently very an-
cient well (3«e Wanikrung, p. 47). In one impor-
tant respect, however, the position of neither of
these agrees with the notice of the Onomasticon,
since it is not near the mountains, but on the open
plain of the Shefelah. But as Btit-Jibrin, the
ancient Eleutheropolis, stands on the western slopes
of the mountains of Judah, it is difficult to under-
stand how any place could be westward of it {i. e.
between it and Ascalon), and yet be itself in the
mountain district, unless that expression may refer
to places which, though situated in the plain, were
for some reason considered as belonging to the
towns of the mountains. We have already seen
reason to suspect that the reverse was the case with
some others. [Keilah; Nezib, etc.]

Schwarz, though aware of the existence of Sa-
wajir (p. 116), suggests as the most feasible iden-
tification the village of Snfriyeh, a couple of miles
N. W. of Lydda (p. 136). The drawback to this is,
that the places mentioned by Micah appear, as far
as we can trace them, to be mostly near Btit-Jibrin,
and in addition, that Snjiriyeh is in clear contra-
diction to the notice of Eusebius and Jerome.

SAPPHI'RA (2a7r<^eip77 = either sapphire,
from adircp^ipos, or beautiful, from the Syriac

S"n"^2ir). The wife of Ananias, and the partici-
pator both in his guilt and in his punishment
(Acta V. 1-10). The interval of three hours that
elapsed between the two deaths, Sapphira's igno-
rance of what had happened to her husband, and
the predictive language of St. Peter towards her,

SARAH

are decisive evidences as to the supernatural char-
acter of the whole transaction. The history of
Sapphira's death thus supplements that of Ananias,
which might otherwise have been attributed to
natural causes. W. L. B.

SAPPHIRE (">^SP, sappir: (rdir<p€ipos:
sapphirus). A precious stone, apparently of a
bright blue color, see Ex. xxiv. 10, where the God
of Israel is represented as being seen in vision by
Moses and the Elders with " a paved work of a
sappir stone, and as it were the body of heaven in
its clearness" (comp. Ez. i. 26). The sappir was
the second stone in the second row of the high-
priest's breastplate (Ex. xxviii. 18); it was ex-
tremely precious (Job xxviii. 16); it was one of
the precious stones that ornamented the king of
Tyre (Ez. xxviii. 13). Notwithstanding the idon-
tity of name between our sapphire and the (Tdir<f>ei-
pos and sajrphirus of the Greeks and Romans, it is
generally agreed that the sapphirus of the ancients
was not our gem of that name, namely, the azure
or indigo-blue, crystalline variety of Corundum, but
our lapis-lnzuU {ultra-marine] \ this point may
be regarded as established, for PHny (//. iV. xxxvii.
9) thus speaks of the sapphirus: "It is refulgent
with spots of gold, of an azure color sometimes,
but not often purple; the best kind comes from
Media; it is never transparent, and is not well
suited for engraving upon when intersected with
hard crystalline particles." This description an-
swers exactly to the character of the lapis-lazuli ;
the "crystalhne particles " of Pliny are crystals of
iron pyrites, which often occur with this mineral.
It is, however, not so certain that the sappir of
the Hebrew Bible is identical with the lapis-lazuli ;
for the Scriptural requirements demand transpar-
ency, great \'alue, and good material for the en-
graver's art, all of which combined characters the
lapis-lazuli does not possess in any great degree.
Mr. King {Antique Gems, p. 44) says that intagli
and camei of Roman times are frequent in the
material, but rarely any works of much merit.
Again, the sappir was certainly pellucid, " sane
apud Judseos," says Braun {De Vest. Sac. p. 680, ed.
1680), " saphiros pellucidas notas fuisse manifestls-
simum est, adeo etiam ut pellucidum illorum phi-

losophis dicatur *^"^DD, saphir:^ Beckmann
{Hist, of Invent, i. 472) is of opinion that the
sappir of the Hebrews is the same as the lapis-
lazuli ; Rosenmiiller and Braun agree in favor of
its being our sapphire or precious Corundum. We
are incUned to adopt this latter opinion, but are
unable to come to any satisfactory conclusion.

W. H.

SA'RA (2ap^a: Sara). 1. Sarah, the wife
of Abraham (Heb. xi. 11; 1 Pet. iii. 6).

2. The daughter of Raguel, in the apocryphal
history of Tobit. As the story goes, she had been
married to seven husbands, who were all slain on
the wedding night by Asmodeus, the evil spirit,
who loved her (Tob. iii. 7). The breaking of
the spell and the chasing away of the evil spirit by
the "fishy fume," when Sara was married to
Tobias, are told in chap. viii.

SARABI'AS(2a^a)8ms: Srtre&tfls). Shere-
BiAH (1 Esdr. ix. 48; comp. Neh. viii. 7).

SA'RAH (nnb, princess: 'S.dpPa' Sarat'

originally ^'2^: 2apa: Sarai). 1. The wife of
Abraham and mother of Isaac.

SARAH

Of her birth and parentage we have no certain
account in Scripture. Her name is first introduced
in Gen. xi. 29, as follows: " Abrani and Nahor
took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was
Sarai: and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah
the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and
the father of Iscah." In Gen. xx. 12, Abraham
speaks of her as " his sister, the daughter of the
same father, but not the daughter of the same
mother." The common Jewish tradition, taken
for granted by Josephus (Ant. i. c. 6, § 6) and by
St. Jerome ( Qiuest. Ilebr. ad Genesin, vol. iii. p. 323,
ed. Ben. 1735), is that Sarai is the same as Iscah,
the daughter of Haran, and the sister of Lot, who
is called Abraham's "brother" in Gen. xiv. 14, 16.
Judging from the fact that Rebekah, the grand-
daughter of Nahor, was the wife of Isaac the son
of Abraham, there is reason to conjecture that
Abraham was the youngest brother, so that his
wife might not improbably be younger than the
wife of Nahor. It is certainly strange, if the tra-
dition be true, that no direct mention of it is found
in Gen. xi. 29. But it is not in)probable in itself;
it supplies the account of the descent of the mother
of the chosen race, the omission of which in such a
passage is most unlikely ; and there is no other to
set against it.

The change of her name from •» Sarai " to " Sa-
rah " was made at the same time that Abram's
name was changed to Abraham, on the establish-
ment of the covenant of circumcision betweenhim
and God. That the name " Sarah " signifies " prin-
cess " is universally acknowledged. But the mean-
ing of " Sarai " is still a subject of controversy.
The older interpreters (as, for example, St. Jerome
in Qiuest. Ilebr. ^ and those who follow him) sup-
pose it to mean "my princess;" and explain the
change from Sarai to Sarah, as signifying that she
was no longer the queen of one family, but the
royal ancestress of " all families of the earth." ITiey

also suppose that the addition of the letter H, as
taken from the sacred Tetragrammaton Jehovah, to
the names of Abram and Sarai, mystically signified
their being received into covenant with the Ix)rd.
Among modern Hebraists there is great diversity of
interpretation. One opinion, keeping to the same
general derivation as that referred to abo\-e, explains
"Sarai" as "noble," "nobility," etc., an explana-
tion which, even more than the other, labors under
the objection of giving little force to the change.
Another opinion supposes Sarai to be a contracted

form of n^nCi? (Serdydh), and to signify "Jeho-
vah is ruler." But this gives no force whatever to
the change, and besides introduces the same name
Jah into a proper name too early in the history.

A third (following Ewald) derives it from ^"^127,
a root which is found in Gen. xxxii. 28, Hos. xii.
4, in the sense of " tx) fight," and explains it as
"contentious" {si7'ei(suchti</). This last seems to
be etymologically the most probable, and diflfers
from the others in giving great force and dignity
to the change of name. (See Ges. Thes. vol. iii.
p. 1338 6.)

Her history is, of course, that of Abraham.
She came with him from Ur to Haran, from Haran

SARAI

2841

« Note the significant remark on Isaac's marriage
(Gen. xxiv. 67), ■' Isaac was comforted after his moth-
er's death." There is a Jewish tradition, based ap-
parently on the mention of Sarah's death almost im-
179

to Canaan, and accompanied him in all the wander-
ings of his life. Her only independent action is
the demand that Hagar and Ishmael should be cast
out, far from all rivalry with her and Isaac; a
demand, symbolically applied in Gal. iv. 22-31 to
the displacement of the Old Covenant by the New.
The times in which she plays the most important
part in the history, are the times when Abraham
was sojourning, first in Egypt, then in Gerar, and
where Sarah shared his deceit, towards Pharaoh
and towards Abimelech. On the first occasion,
al)out the middle of her life, her personal beauty is
dwelt upon as its cause (Gen. xii. 11-15); on the
second, just before the birth of Isaac, at a time
when she was old (thirty- seven years before her
death), but when her vigor had been miraculously
restored, the same cause is alluded to, as supposed
by Abraham, but not actually stated (xx. 9-11).
In both cases, especially the last, the truthfulness
of the history is seen in the unfavorable contrast
in which the conduct both of Abraham and Sarah
stands to that of Pharaoh and Abimelech. She
died at Hebron at the age of 127 years, 28 years
before her husband, and was buried by him in the
cave of Machpelah. Her burial place, purchased
of Ephron the Ilittite, was the only possession of
Abraham in the land of promise; it has remained,
hallowed in the eyes of Jews, Christians, and Mo-
hammedans alike, to the present day ; and in it the
" shrine of Sarah " is pointetl out opposite to that
of Abraham, with those of Isaac and Rebekah on
the one side, and those of Jacob and I^ah on the
other (see Stanley's Led. on Jewish Church, app.
ii. pp. 484-509).

Her character, like that of Abraham, is no ideal
type of excellence, but one thoroughly natural, in-
ferior to that of her husband, and truly feminine,
both in its excellences and its defects. She is the
mother, even more than the wife. Her natural
motherly aflfection is seen in her touching desire
for children, even from her bondmaid, and in her
unforgiving jealousy of that bondmaid, when she
became a mother; in her rejoicing over her son
Isaac, and in the jealousy which resented the
slightest insult to him, and forbade Ishmael to
share his sonship. It makes her cruel to others as
well as tender to her own,« and is remarkably con-
trasted with the sacrifice of natural feeling on the
part of Abraham to God's conmiand hi the last
case (Gen. xxi. 12). To the same character belong
her ironical laughter at the promise of a child, long
desired, but now beyond all hope; her trembling
denial of that laughter, and her change of it to the
laughter of thankful joy, which she commemorated
in the name of Isaac. It is a character deeply
and truly affectionate, but impulsive, jealous, and
imperious in its affection. It is referred to in the
N. T. as a type of conjugal obedience in 1 Pet. iii.
6, and as one of the types of faith in Heb. xi. 11

A. B.

2. {ni^: :Xdpa-, [Vat.l M. Kopo:] Sara.)
Serah the daughter of Asher (Num. xxvi. 46).

SA'RAI [2 syl.] {"""^^ [see below]: ^dpa:
Sarai). The original name of Sarah, the wife of
Abraham. It is always used in the history from

mediately after the sacrifice of Isaac, that the shock
of it killed her, and that Abraham found her dead on
his return from Moriah.

2842 SARAIAS

Gen. xi. 29 to xvii. 15, when it was changed to
Sarah at the same time that her husband's name
from Abram l)ecame Abraham, and the birth of
Isaac was more distinctly foretold. The meaning
of the name apiiears to be, as Ewald has sug-
gested, "contentious." [Sarah.]

SARA'IAS [3 syl] (Sapa.'os: om. in Vulg.).
1. Seraiah the higii-priest (1 lisdr. v. 5).

2. i'ACapaias; Alex. [Aid.] :S,apalasi Azai-ias,
Azareus.) Seraiah the father of Ezra (1 Esdr.
viii. 1; 2 YaAt. i. 1).

SAR'AMEL ([Rom.] Alex. ^apafx^K; [Sin.
and] other MSS. 'AaapafieX : Asaramel). The
name of the place in which the assembly of the
Jews was held at which the high-priesthood was
conferred upon Simon Maccabseus (1 Mace. xiv.
28). The fact that the name is found only in this
passage has led to the conjecture that it is an im-
perfect version of a word in the original Hebrew or
Syriac, from which the present Greek text of the
Maccabees is a translation. Some (as Castellio)
have treated it as a corruption of Jerusalem : but
this is inadmissible, shice it is inconceivable that
so well-known a name should be corrupted. The
other conjectures are enumerated by Grimm in the
Kurzgef. exegetlsches Flandb. on the passage. A
few only need be named here, but none seem per-
fectly satisfactory. All appear to adopt the read-
ing Asctramel. 1. Hnhatsar Millo, " the court
of Millo," Millo being not improbably the citadel
of Jerusalem [vol. iii. p. 1937]. This is the con-
jecture of Grotius, and has at least the merit of
ingenuity." 2. Hahatsar Am El, " the court of
the people of God, that is, the great court of the
Temple." This is due to Ewald (Gesch. iv. 387),
who compares with it the well-known Sarbeth
Sabanai El, given by Eusebius as the title of the
Maccabaean history. [See Maccabees, vol. ii. p.
1718.] 3. Hnsshnar Am El, » the gate of the
people of God," adopted by AViner (Realwb.). 4.
Hassar Am El, " prince of the people of God," as
if not the name of a place, but the title of Simon,
the " in " having been inserted by puzzled copyists.
This is adopted by Grimm himself. It has in its
favor the fact that without it Simon is here styled
high-priest only, and his second title, "captain and
governor of the Jews and priests " (ver. 47), is
then omitted in the solemn official record — the
very place where it ought to be found. It also
seems to be countenanced by the Peshito-Syriac
version, which certainly omits the title of "high-
priest," but inserts Rabba de Israel, " leader of
Israel." None of these explanations, however, can
be regarded as entirely satisfactory. G.

SA'RAPH (^7^ [burning, fiery, poison-
<yus]: 2op({</); [Vat. SaioO Incenclens). Men-
tioned in 1 Chr. iv. 22 among the descendants of
Shelah the son of Judah. Burrington ( Geneal. i.
179) makes Seraph a descendant of Jokira, whom
he regards as the third son of Shelah. In the
Targum of R. Joseph, Joash and Saraph are
identified with Mahlon and Chilion, "who mar-
ried (^brS) in Moab."

SARCHED'ONUS ([Rom. Vat.] Sax^p-
Zov6s, [Alex.] "Xaxfp^av, [Aid. Xapx^Sdvos :]
Archedonassar, Achenossar, Sarcedonassar), a col-
lateral form of the name Esar-haddon [Esar-had-

a Junius and Tremellius render it by in atrio muni-
*ionis.

SARDIS

don], occurring Tob. i. 21. The form in A. V. for
Sacherdonus appears to be an oversight. [It comes
from the Aldine edition. — A.] B. F. W.

SARDE'US (ZepaA.(oy; Alex. Zapdaios [so
Tisch., but ZapSaias, Babers ed.; Aid. i^apSalos']
Tebedias). AziZA (1 Esdr. ix. 28; comp. I^r.
X. 27).

SARDINE, SARDIUS (DllH odem: a<kp-
Siov'' sardim) is, according to the LXX. and
Josephus {Bell. Jud. v. 5, § 7), the correct render-
ing of the Hebrew term, which occurs in Ex. xxviii.
17, xxxix. 10, as the name of the stone which
occupied the first place in the first row of the high-
priest's breastplate; it should, however, be noticed
that Josephus is not strictly consistent with him-
self, for in the Antiq. iii. 7, § 5, he says that the
sardonyx was the first stone in the breastplate;
still as this latter named mineral is merely another
variety of agate, to which also the sard or sardius
belongs, there is no very great discrepancy in the
statements of the Jewish historian. The odem is
mentioned by Ezekiel (xxviii. 13) as one of the orna-
ments of the king of Tyre. In Rev. iv. 3, St. John
declares that he whom he saw sitting on the
heavenly throne " was to look upon like a jasper
and a sardine stone." The sixth foundation of
the wall of the heavenly Jerusalem was a sardius
(Rev. xxi. 20). There can scarcely be a doubt
that either the sard or the sardonyx is the stone
denoted by odem. The authority of Josephus in
all that relates to the high-priest's breastplate is of
the greatest value, for as Braun {De Vest. Sac.
Heb. p. 635) has remarked, Josephus was not only
a Jew but a priest, who might have seen the breast-
plate with the whole sacerdotal vestments a hun-
dred times, since in his time the Temple was stand-
ing ; the Vulgate agrees with his nomenclature ; in
Jerome's time the breastplate was still to be in-
spected in the Temple of Concord ; hence it will
readily be acknowledged that this agreement of the
two is of great weight.

The sard, which is a superior variety of agate,
has long been a favorite stone for the engraver's
art; "on this stone," says Mr. King {Antique.
Gems, p. 5), " all the finest works of the mpst
celebrated artists are to be found; and this not
without good cause, such is its toughness, facility
of working, beauty of color, and the high polish
of which it is susceptible, and which Pliny states
that it retains longer than any other gem." Sards
differ in color; there is a bright red variety which,
in Pliny's time, was the most esteemed, and, per-
haps, the Heb. odem, from a root which means " to
be red," points to this kind ; there is also a paler
or honey-colored variety ; but in all sards there is
always a shade of yellow mingling with the red
(see King's Ant. Gems, p. 6). The sardius, ac-
cording to Pliny (//. N. xxxvii. 7), derived its
name from Sardis in Lydia, where it was first
found; Babylonian specimens, however, were the
most esteemed. The Hebrews, in the time
Moses, could easily have obtained their sard ston
from Arabia, in which country they were at
time the breastplate was made ; other precious ston.
not acquirable during their wanderings, may have
been brought with them from the land of their
bondage when "they spoiled the Egyptians."

S AR'DIS [w SAR'DES] (2cJpSets). A city
situated about two miles to the south of the river
Hermus, just below the range of Tmolus {Bo»

irst
the,^

of a

nei^H
nefl^H

SARDIS

Dnyh), on a spur of which its acropoUs was built.
It was the ancient residence of the kings of Lydia.
After its conquest by Cyrus, the Pereians always
kept a garrison in the citadel, on account of its
natural strength, which induced Alexander the
Great, when it was surrendered to him in the
sequel of the battle of the Ciranicus, similarly to
occupy It. Sardis was in very early times, both
from the extremely fertile character of the neigh-
boring region, and from its convenient position, a
commercial mart of importance. Chestnuts were
first produced in the neighborhood, which procured
them the name of ^dXavoi 'XapSiavoi. The art
of dyeing wool is said by I'liny to have been
invented there; and at any rate, Sardis was the
entrepot of the dyed woolen manufactures, of which
I'hrygia with its vast flocks (TroAuTrpo/SoTwroTTj,
Herod, v. 49) furnished the raw material. Hence
we hear of the (poiviKidts ^apSiaual, and Sappho
speaks of the ttoik'O^os fidaOKr^s AvSiov Ka\hv
ipyovy which was perhaps something like the mod-

SARDIS

2843

em Turkish carpets. Some of the woolen manu-
factures, of a peculiarly fine texture, were called
»|/iAoTa7riS6s. The hall through which the king
of Persia passed from his state apartments to the
gate where he mounted on his horse, was laid with
these, and no foot but that of the monarch was
allowed to tread on them. In the description
given of the habits of a young Cyprian exquisite
of great wealth, he is represented as reposing upon
a bed of which the feet were silver, and upon which
these \\ii\oTa.Tnhes lapZiavai were laid as a mat-
tress. Sardis, too, was the place where the metal
eltctrum was procured (Soph. Antig. 1037); and
it was thither that the Spartans sent in the sixth
century b. c. to purchase gold for the purpose of
gilding the face of the Apollo at Amyclae. This
was probably furnished by the auriferous sand of
the Pactolus, a brook which came from Tniolus,
and ran through the nyora of Sardis by the side
of the great temple of Cyl)ebe. But though its
gold-washings may have been celebrated in early

Ruins of Sardis.

times, the greatness of Sardis in its best days was
much more due to its general commercial impor-
tance and its convenience as an entrepot. This
seems to follow from the statement, that not only
silver and gold coins were there first minted, but
there also the class of KaTrrjAot (stationary traders
as contradistinguished from the '4fxiropoi, or travel-
ling merchants) first arose. It was also, at any
rate between the fall of the Lydian and that of the
I'ersian dynasty, a slave-mart.

Sardis recovered the privilege of municipal gov-
ernment (and, as was alleged several centuries
afterwards, the right of a sanctuary) upon its sur-
render to Alexander the Great, but its fortunes for
the next three hundred years are very obscure. It
changed hands more than once in the contests
between the dynasties which arose after the death
of Alexander. In the year 214 b. c, it was taken
and sacked by the army of Antiochus tlie Great,
who besieged his cousin Achaeus in it for two years
before succeeding, as he at last did through treach-

ery, in obtaining possession of the person of the
latter. After the ruin of Antiochus's fortunes, it
passed, with the rest of Asia on that side of Tau-
rus, under the dominion of the kings of Pergamus,
whose interests led them to divert the course of
traffic between Asia and Europe away from Sardis.
Its productive soil must always have continued a
source of wealth; but its importance as a central
mart appears to have diminislied from the time of
the invasion of Asia by Alexander. Of the few
inscriptions which have been discovered, all, or
nearly all, belong to the time of the Homan empire.
Yet there still exist considerable remains of the
earlier days. The massive temple of Cybebe still
bears witness in its fragmentary remains to the
wealth and architectural skill of the people that
raised it. Mr. Cockerell, who visited it in 1812,
found two columns standing with their architrave,
i the stone of which stretched in a single block from
1 the centre of one to that of tlie other. This stone,
' although it was not the largest of the architrave.

2844

SARDIS

he calculates must have weighed 25 tons. The
diameters of the columns supporting it are 6 feet
4J inches at about 35 feet below the capital. The
present soil (apparently formed by the crumbling
away of the hill which backs the temple on its
eastern side) is more than 25 feet above the pave-
ment. Such proportions are not inferior to those
of the columns in the Herseum at Samos, which
divides, in the estimation of Herodotus, with the
Artemisium at Ephesus, the palm of preeminence
among all the works of Greek art. And as regards
the details, " the capitals appeared," to Mr. Cock-
erell, " to surpass any specimen of the Ionic he had
seen in perfection of design and execution." On
the north side of the acropolis, overlooking the
valley of the Hermus, is a theatre near 400 feet in
diameter, attached to a stadium of about 1,000.
This probably was erected after the restoration of
Sardis by Alexander. In the attack of Sardis by
Antiochus, described by Polybius (vii. 15-18), it
constituted one of the chief points on which, after
entering the city, the assaulting force was directed.
The temple belongs to the era of the Lydian
dynasty, and is neai-ly conteniporaneous with the
temple of Zeus Panhellenius in JLgina, and that
of Here in Samos. To the same date may be as-
signed the " Valley of Sweets " (y\vKvs ayKdov),
a pleasure ground, the fame of which Polycrates
endeavored to rival by the so-called Laura at
Samos.

The modern name of the ruins at Sardis is Serf-
Kalessi. Travellers describe the appearance of the
locality on approaching it from the N. W. as that
of complete solitude. The Pactolus is a mere thread
of water, all but evanescent in summer time. The
Wadis-tchai (Hermus), in the neighborhood of the
town, is between 50 and 60 yards wide, and nearly
3 feet deep, but its waters are turbid and disagree-
able, and are not only avoided as unfit for drink-
ing, but have the local reputation of generating
the fever which is the scourge of the neighboring
plains.

In the time of the emperor Tiberius, Sardis was
desolated by an earthquake, together with eleven,
or as EusebFus says twelve, other important cities
of Asia. The whole face of the country is said to
have been changed by this convulsion. In the
case of Sardis the calamity was increased by a pes-
tilential fever which followed ; and so much com-
passion was in consequence excited for the city at
Kome, that its tribute was remitted for five years,
and it received a benefaction from the privy purse
of the emperor. This was in the year 17 A. D.
Nine years afterwards the Sardians are found
among the competitors for the honor of erecting,
as representatives of the Asiatic cities, a temple to
their benefactor. [Smyrna.] On this occasion
they plead, not only their ancient services to Rome
in the time of the Macedonian war, but their well-
watered country, their climate, and the richness of
the neighboring soil : there is no allusion, however,
to the important manufactures and the commerce
of the early times. In the time of Pliny it was
included in the same converdus jurixlicus with Phil-
adelphia, with the Cadueni, a Macedonian colony
in the neighborhood, with some settlements of the
old Maeonian population, and a few other towns of
less note. These Masonians still continued to call
Sardis by its ancient name Hyd6, which it bore in
the time of Omphale.

The only passage in which Sardis is mentioned
in the Bible, is Rev. iii. 1-6. There is nothing in

SARGON

it which appears to have any special reference to
the peculiar circumstances of the city, or to any-
thing else than the moral and spiritual condition
of the Christian community existing there. This
latter was probably, in its secular relations, pretty
nearly identical with that at Philadelphia.

(Athenseus ii. 48, vi. 231, xii. 514, 540; Ar-
rian, i. 17; Pliny, IL N. v. 29, xv. 23;*Stepha-
nus Byz. v. "TSrj ; Pausanias, iii. 9, 5 ; Diodo-
rus Sic. XX. 107; Scholiast, Aristoph. Pac. 1174;
Boeckh, Inscriptiones Grcecce, Nos. 3451-3472;
Herodotus, i. 69, 94, iii. 48, viii. 105; Strabo, xiii.
§ 5 ; Tacitus, Annul, ii. 47, iii. 63, iv. 55 ; Cocker-
ell, in Leake's Asia Minm; p. 343 ; Arundell, Dis-
coveries in Asia Minor, i. pp. 26-28 ; Tchihatcheff,
Asie Mineure, pp. 232-242.) J. W. B.

SAR'DITES THE C^'^J^Dn [patr.] : 6 2op-
eSi [Vat. -Sei] : Sareditm). The descendants of
Seeed the son of Zebulon (Num. xxvi. 26).

SARDONYX {aap^Svv^' sardonyx) is men-
tioned in the N. T. once only, namely, in Rev.
xxi. 20, as the stone which garnished the fifth foun-
dation of the wall of the heavenly Jerusalem. " By
sardonyx," says Pliny {H. N. xxxvii. 6), who de-
scribes several varieties, "was formerly understood, as
its name implies, a sard with a white ground beneath
it, like the flesh under the finger-nail." The sar-
donyx consists of " a white opaque layer, superim-
posed upon a red transparent stratum of the true
red sard" {Antique 6'e7HS, p. 9); it is, like the
sard, merely a variety of agate, and is frequently
employed by engravers for the purpose of a signet-
ring. W. H.

SA^REA (Sarea). One of the five scribes
"ready to write swiftly" whom Esdras was com-
manded to take (2 Esdr. xiv. 24).

SAREP'TA (SapeTTTo: Sarepta: Syriac,
Tsar path). The Greek form of the name which in
the Hebrew text of the O. T. appears as Zare-
PHATH. The place is designated by the same for-
mula on its single occurrence in the N. T. (Luke
iv. 26) that it is when first mentioned in theLXX.
version of 1 K. xvii. 9, " Sarepta of Sidonia."

G. .

SAR'GON C|'"12'?P [peril. Pers., prince of
the sun, Ges.] : 'Apm: Sargon) was one of the
greatest of the Assyrian kings. His name is read
in the native inscriptions as Sargina, while a town
which he built and called after himself (now Khor-
sabad) was known as Sarghun to the Arabian
geographers. He is mentioned by name only once
in Scripture (Is. xx. 1), and then not in an histor-
ical book, which formerly led historians and critics
to suspect that he was not really a king distinct
from those mentioned in Kings and Chronicles, but
rather one of those kings under another name. Vi-
tringa, Ofterhaus, Eichhorn, and Hupfeld identified
him with Shalmaneser; Grotius, Lowth, and Keil
with Sennacherib; Perizonius, Kalinsky, and Mi-
chaelis with Esarhaddon. All these conjectures
are now shown to be wrong by the Assyrian in-
scriptions, which prove Sargon to have been dis-
tinct and different from the several monarchs named,
and fix his place in the list — where it had been
already assigned by Roseimiijller, Gesenius, Ewald,
and Winer — between Shalmaneser and Sennach-
erib. He was certainly Sennacherib's father, and
there is no reason to doubt that he was his im-
mediate predecessor. He ascended the throne of
Assyria, as we gather from his annals, in the same

SARGON

year that Merodach-Balad:in ascended the throne
of Babylon, which, according to Ptolemy's Canon,
was B. c. 721. He seems to have been an usurper,
and not of royal birth, for in his inscriptions he
carefully avoids all mention of his father. It has
been conjectured that he took advantage of Shal-
maneser's absence at the protracted siege of Sama-
ria (2 K. xvii. 5) to effect a revolution at the seat
of government, by which that king was deposed,
and he himself substituted in his room. [Shal-
JiANESEK.] It is remarkable that Sargon claims
the conquest of Samaria, which the narrative in
Kings aftpears to assign to his predecessor. He
places the event in his first year, before any of his
other expeditions. Perhaps, therefore, he is the
'• king of Assyria " intended in 2 K. xvii. 6 and
xviii. 11, who is not said to be Shalmaneser, though
we might naturally suppose so from no other name
being mentioned." Or perhaps he claimetl the
conquest as his own, though Shalmaneser really
accomplished it, because the capture of the city oc-
curred after he had been acknowledged king in the
Assyrian capital. At any rate, to him belongs the
settlement of the Samaritans (27,280 families, ac-
cording to his own statement) in Halah, and on
the Habor {Kliabour), the river of Gozan, and (at
a later period probably) in the cities of the Medes.
Sargon was undoubtedly a great and successful
warrior. In his aimals, which cover a space of
fifteen years (from u. c. 721 to b. c. 70G), he gives
an account of his warlike expeditions against Baby-
lonia and Susiana on the south, Metlia on the Ciist,
Armenia and Cappadocia towards the north, Syria,
Palestine, .\rabia, and Egypt towards the west and
the southwest. In Baliylonia he deposed Mero-
dach-Baladan, and established a viceroy; in Media
he built a number of cities, which he peopled with
captives from other quarters ; in Armenia and the
neighboring countries he gained many victories;
while in the far west he reduced Philistia, pene-
trated deep into the Arabian peninsula, and forced
Egypt to submit to his arms and consent to the
payment of a triliute. In this last direction he
seetns to have waged three wars — one in his sec-
ond year (b. c. 720), for the possession of Gaza;
another in his sixth year (b. c. 715), when Egypt
itself was the object of attack ; and a third in his
ninth (b. c. 712), when the special subject of con-
tention was Ashdod, which Sargon took by one of
his generals. This is the event which causes the
mention of Sargon's name in Scripture. Isaiah
was instructed at the time of this expedition to
" put off his shoe, and go naked and barefoot," for
a sign that " the king of Assyria should lead away
the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians cap-
tives, young and old, naked and barefoot, to the
shame of Egypt" (Is. xx. 2-4). We may gather
from this, either that Ethiopians and Egyptians
formed part of the garrison of Ashdod aild were
captured with the city, or that the attack on the
Philistine town was accompanied by an invasion of
Egypt itself, which was disastrous to the Egyptians.
The year of the attack, being b. c. 712, would fall
into the reign of the first Ethiopian king, Sabaco

SARON

2845

o There is a peculiarity of phraseology in 2 K. xviii.
9, 10, which perhaps indicates a knowledge on the part
of the writer that Shalmaneser was not the actual
captor. " lu the fourth year of Hezekiah," he says,
" Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Sama-
ria and besieged it : and at the end of three years,
IH£Y took it."

I., who probably conquered Egypt in b. c. 714
(Rawlinson's Herodotus, i. 386, note 7, 2d ed.),
and it is in agreement with this [that] Sargon
speaks of Egypt as being at this time subject to
Meroe. Besides these expeditions of Sargon, his
monuments mention that he took Tyre, and re-
ceived tribute from the Greeks of Cyprus, against
whom there is some reason to think that he con-
ducted an attack in person.^

It is not as a warrior only that Sargon deserves
special mention among the Assyrian kings. He
was also the builder of useful works and of one of
the most magnificent of the Assyrian palaces. He
relates that he thoroughly repaired the walls of
Nineveh, which he seems to have elevated from a
provincial city of some importance to the first posi-
tion in the empire; and adds further, that in its
neighborhood he constructed the palace and town
which he made his principal residence. This was
the city now known as " the Erench Nineveh," or
»' Khorsabad," from which the valuable series of
Assyrian monuments at present in the Louvre is
derived almost entirely. Traces of Sargon's build-
ings have been found also at Nimrud and Koyun-
jik; and his time is marked by a considerable ad-
vance in the useful and ornamentiil arts, which
seem to have profited by the connection which he
established between Assyria and Egypt. He probably
reigned nineteen years, from b. c. 721 to b. c. 702,
when he left the throne to his son, the celebrated
Sennacherib. G. R.

SA'RID (I'^ltp [one left, a s«?t«w] : 'Eerc-
ZfKyu}\a,^ 2e55ovK ; Alex. 2a/)0i5, 2o/)t8 : Sarid).
A chief landmark of the territory of Zebuluri, ap-
parently the pivot of the western and southern
boundaries (Josh. xix. 10, 12). All that can be
gathered of its position is that it lay to the west of
Chisloth-Tabor. It was unknown to Eusebius and
Jerome, and no trace of it seems to have been
found by any traveller since their day {Onom.
"Sarith").

The ancient Syriac version, in each case, reads
Asdod. This may be only from the interchange,
so frequent in this version, of R and D. At any
rate, the Ashdod of the Philistines cannot be in-
tended. G.

SA'RON {rhv SapcDva; in some MSS. acaa-
patva, i- e. ^yiWll [the j)lain\ : Sarona). The
district in which Lydda stood (Acts ix. 35 only);
the SiiAKON of the O. T. The absence of the ar-
ticle from Lydda, and its presence before Saron, is
noticeable, and shows that the name denotes a dis-
trict — as in "The Shefelah," and in our own
" The Weald," " The Downs." G.

* The Plain extended along the sea-coast from
Joppa to Caesarea, about 30 miles. Though con-
nected by Kai to Lydda, in Acts ix. 35, Saron in-
cluded that city. It has been conjectured that there
was a village of this name, but no trace of it has
been discovered. Luke's meaning is that not only
the inhabitants of Lydda but of the Plain gener-
ally, heard of the miracle and believed. H.

b The statue of Sargon, now in the Beriin Museum,
was found at Idalium in Cyprus. It is not very likely
that the king's statue would have been set up unless
he had made the expedition in person.

c This barbarous word is obt.ained by joining to Sa-

rid the first word of the following verse, H ''V').

2846 SAROTHIE

SARO'THIE [4 8)1.] (2ao«flr [Vat. -0€i];
Alex. [Aid.] Sapwflic': Caromtn). "The sons of
Sarothie " are among the sons of the servants of
Solomon who returned with Zorobabel, according
to the list in 1 I'2sdr. v. 34. There is nothing cor-
responding to it in the Hebrew.

SAR'SECHIM (D'^pp")b [pnnce of the
eunuchs]: Sarsachim). One of the generals of
Nebuchadnezzar's army at the taking of Jerusalem
(Jer. xxxix. 3). He appears to have held the office
of chief eunuch, for Kab- saris is probably a title
and not a proper name. In Jer. xxxix. 13, Nebu-
shasban is called Rab-saris, " chief eunuch," and
the question arises whether Xebushasban and Sar-
sechim may not be names of the same person. In
the LXX., verses 3 and 13 are mixed up together,
and so hopelessly corrupt that it is impossible to
infer anything from their reading of Nafiova-dxap
[but Comp. Na/Souo-oporax'V] ^^^ Sarsechim. In
Gesenius' Thesaurus it is conjectured that Sarse-
chim and Kab-saris "may be identical, and both
titles of the same office.

SA'RUCH {-Xapovx' Saruff). Serug the
son of Reu (Luke iii. 35).

SA'TAN. The word itself, the Hebrew 1^^,
is simply an " adversary,'' and is so used in 1 Sam.
xxix. 4; 2 Sam. xix. 22; 1 K. v. 4 (LXX. eVj-
fiovXos); in 1 K. xi. 25 (LXX. avriKei/x^vos)', in
Num. xxii. 22, and Ps. cix. 6 (LXX. Sid^oXos and
cognate words); in 1 K. xi. 14, 23 (LXX. o-arai/).
This original sense is still found in our Lord's ap-
plication of the name to St. Peter in Matt. xvi. 23.
It is used as a proper name or title only four times
in the O. T., namely, (with the article) in Job i. 6,
12, ii. 1; Zech. iii. 1, and (without the ai-ticle) in
1 Chr. xxi. 1. In each case the LXX. has Sidfio-
\os, and the Vulgate Satan. In the N. T. the
word is aaruvas, followed by the Vulgate Satanas,
except in 2 Cor. xii. 7, where aaTciv is used. It is
found in twenty-five places (exclusive of parallel pas-
sages), and the corresponding word 6 Sid^oXos in
about the same number. The title 6 &px(»v tov
Koc/iiov rovTov is used three times; 6 •n:ovt]p6s is
used certainly six times, probably more frequently,
and ireipdCwv twice.

It is with the Scriptural revelation on the sub-
ject that we are here concerned, and it is clear,
from this simple enumeration of passages, that it is
to be sought in the New, rather than in the Old
Testament.

It divides itself naturally into the consideration
of his existence, his nature, and his power and
action.

(A.) His Existenck. — It would be a waste of
time to prove, that, in various degrees of clearness,
the personal existence of a Spirit of Evil is revealed
again and again in Scripture. Every quality, every
action, which can indicate personality, is attributed
to him in lanj^uage which cannot be explained away.
It is not difficult to see why it should be thus re-
vealed. It is obvious that the fact of his existence
is of spiritual importance, and it is also clear, from
the nature of the case, that it could not be discov-
ered, although it might be suspected, by human
reason. It is in the power of that reason to test
any supposed manifestations of supernatural power,
and any asserted principles of Divine action, which
fall within its sphere of exi>erience (" the earthly
things " of John iii. 12); it may by such examina-
tion satisfy itself of the truth and divinity of a Per-

SATAN

son or a book ; but, having done this, it must then
cept and understand, without being able to test
or to explain, the disclosures of this Divine author-
ity upon subjects beyond this world (the " heavenly
things," of which it is said that none can see or
disclose them, save the " Son of Man who is in
heaven ").

It is true, that human thought can assert an
a prixyfi probability or improbability in such state-
ments made, based on the perception of a greater or
less degree of accordance in principle between the
things seen and the things unseen, between the
effects, which are visible, and the causes, which are
revealed from the regions of mystery. But even
this power of weighing probability is applicable
i-ather to the fact and tendency, than to the method,
of supernatural action. This is true even of natu-
ral action beyond the sphere of human observation.
In the discussion of the Plurality of Worlds, for
example, it may be asserted without doubt, that
in all the orbs of the universe the Divine power,
wisdom, and goodness must be exercised ; but the
inference that the method of their exercise is found
there, as here, in the creation of sentient and rational
beings, is one at best of but moderate probability.
Still more is this the case in the spiritual world.
Whatever supernatural orders of beings may exist,
we can conclude that in their case, as in ours, the
Divine government must be carried on by the union
of individual freedom of action with the overruling
power of God, and must tend finally to that good
which is his central attribute. But beyond this
we can assert nothing to be certain, and can scarcely
even say of any part of the method of this govern-
ment, whether it is antecedently probable or im-
probable.

Thus, on our present subject, man can ascertain
by observation the existence of evil, that is, of facts
and thoughts contrary to the standard which con-
science asserts to be the true one, bringing with
them suffering and misery as their inevitable re-
sults. If he attempts to trace them to their causes,
he finds them to arise, for each individual, partly
from the power of certain internal impulses which
act upon tJie will, partly from the influence of exr
ternal circumstances. These circumstances them-
selves arise, either from the laws of nature and so-
ciety, or by the deliberate action of other men.
He can conclude with certainty, that both seri2s of
causes must exist by the permission of God, and
must finally be overruled to his will. But whether
there exists any superhuman but subordinate cause
of the circumstances, and whether there be any
similar influence acting in the origination of the
impulses which move the will, this is a question
which he cannot answer with certainty. Analogy
from the observation of the only ultimate cause
which he can discover in the visible world, namely,
the free action of a personal will, may lead him,
and generally has led him, to conjecture in the af-
firmative, but still the inquiry remains unanswered
by authority.

The tendency of the mind in its inquiry is gen-
erally towards one or other of two extremes. The
first is to consider evil as a negative imperfection,
arising, in some unknown and inexplicable way,
from the nature of matter, or from some disturbing
influences which limit the action of goodness on
earth ; in fact, to ignore as much of evil as possible,
and to decline to refer the residuum to any positive
cause at all. The other is the old Persian or Man-
ichaean hypothes