Skip to main content

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"

See other formats


Presented to the 
LIBRARY of the 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2008 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 














Cambribge: fiioersiire IJresa. 


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 













. T. 



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- 

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, 


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


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, 

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




























J. H. 


. H 


s. : 





. B. 







J. B. L. 


W. M. 





K 0. 


J. 0. 


J. S. P. 


T. P. 


W. P. 


H. P. 


S. P. 


S. P. 


L. P. 

ipels H 



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

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, 

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 




□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- 

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 

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, 


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- 


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. 





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. " 


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 

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

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. 







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, 

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. 

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, 


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 

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." 



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, 


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 



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 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 



« 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 


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 ? 


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. 

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- 




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. 


*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). 

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. 



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 


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, 



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 

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 

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 



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?. 



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 


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. 


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



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). 


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.] 


□"^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. 



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 


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. 



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 

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 



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- 

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 ; 


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 




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, 

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- 

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 



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 



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 

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 

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 

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 



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, 


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 



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 : — 



(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 



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 

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- 


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 

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 



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., 



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 


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- 

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 

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 


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- 

(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- 

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 



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 

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- 



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- 



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- 

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 


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

(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 

(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> 


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- 

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 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 

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 



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- 




■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 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 


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 

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 % 


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- 



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 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- 

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. 



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 


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 

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, 


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 

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 



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 

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- 



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." 



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, 

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 

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). 

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- 

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 



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- 

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- 




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) 



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 ( 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 



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 


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, 



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 

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- 

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 

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- ^ 




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 

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 

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 


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- 


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 



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- 



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 



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- 

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 


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? 




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. 



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 


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. 



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. 


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 


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. 


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. 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- 

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. 



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 

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. 




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- 

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 

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 
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- 


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 
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 



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 

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- 


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 


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

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. 

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- 

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

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

(2.) Robbee: — 

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

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; 

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. 

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." 




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. 

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



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> 



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 


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 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 



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. 



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 

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 



" 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 




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 

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 

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 



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 



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 

" 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- 


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. 


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. 

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 


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 


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 


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 []. 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 

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, 


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 


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 



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- 

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, 


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 

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. 

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- 


versal as was the condemnation in Adam 
(v. 12-19). 
(c.) The vioi'cU consequences of our deliver- 
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 


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 


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- 

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- 

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 



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 ; 


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 

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- 


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), 


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, 



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). 




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. 

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 


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. 


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 



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). 




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). 


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 



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) 




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, 



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. 


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. 


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 

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 


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 




into a covenant to renew the observance of the Law, 
in which they pledged themselves neither to buy 
nor sell victuals on the Sabbath. The practice was 
then not infrequent, and Nehemiah tells us (xiii. 
15-22) of the successful steps which he took for its 

Henceforward there is no evidence of the Sabbath 
being neglected by the Jews, except such as (1 
Mace. i. 11-15, 39-45) went into open apostasy. 
The faithful remnant were so scrupulous 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 

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 

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 


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 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 

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). 


not deemed inconsistent with the true scope and 
spirit of the Sabbath. It was thought right that 
the meats, though cold, should be of the best and 
choicest, nor might the Sabbath be chosen for a 

Such are the inferences to which we are brought 
by our Lord's words concerning, and works on, the 
sacred day. We have already 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 

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 


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. 

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 

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 




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 



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 

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 


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 

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. 


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 

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 

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. 

Proudhon {Be la Celebration 


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 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- 

We have seen then, that, for whomsoever else the 
provision was intended, the chosen race were in 


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, 

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 

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- 

The next indication of a pre-Mosaic Sabbath has 


been found in Gen. iv. 3, where we read that " in 
process of time it came to pass that Cain brought 
of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the 
Lord." The words rendered in process of time 
mean literally " at the end of days," and it is 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 

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- 

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 


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 

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 



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 

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 



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- 

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 



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 

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 


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 

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-- 

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. 




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- 


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 

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 

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 


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 

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 


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" 

* 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- 


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, 



(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. 

(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 



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- 

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 


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- 

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. 


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 

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 



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 

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 

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. 


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 

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 


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. 

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. 


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 



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- 



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 


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.) 


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, 



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 




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 

'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, 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). 

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- 

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. 




* 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; 

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 



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- 


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. 


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 



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 



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." 


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 



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. 



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- 


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 


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 : — 


§ 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,'^ 


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 


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, 


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. 

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 



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 

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 

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 

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. 


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. 



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- 



" 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.] 


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 



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- 

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- 

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). 


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 

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 



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 

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 

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 


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 

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- 



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- 



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 

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. 


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). 



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) 



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. 



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- 


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 

(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. 

(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 

{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. 



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. 



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. 


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 


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- 

b No such passage, however, now exists in Benja- 
min of Tudela. See the editions of Asher and of 

ma 01 HH 


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- 



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, 

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 



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 

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- 


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" 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- 

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, 



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 

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 




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 

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 



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 



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 

" 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. 


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, 


§ 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. 

The view maintained in the above remarks, as 



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.] 

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 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€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. 


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 


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. 



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, 


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, 


(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 


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 

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 


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, 


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.' " 


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. 


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 


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 

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. 



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. 


5. mDtt7n F)*)bn. [change of nouns.] 

6. nWltl^n. [Emendation of seeming irreg- 
ularities by assimilating forms, etc.] 

7. nVmSn nmnn. [Permutation of 

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 



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- 

(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. 


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 


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 

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] : — 


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 

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 

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 

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 

No. 15. Milan (Ambrosian Libr.). Said to be 
very ancient; not collated. 

No. 16. Leyden (Golius MS.), fol., No. 1. Said 
to be complete. 

No. 17. Gotha (Ducal Libr.). A fragment only. 

No. 18. London, Count of Paris' Library. With 

Printed editions are contained in the Paris and 
Walton Polyglots ; and a 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 



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. 


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, 

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 


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- 


— « 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- 
11, a Shepham, 'Afiuniah, n^DD37. 
Deut. ii. 9, » Ar ("l^?), Arshah, ntt^HS. 

iu. 4, u Argob, Rigobaah, nSS^a**") (Po- 

— 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. 


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," 


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 

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 


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 ^\ 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 


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 

" 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 


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- 

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 

^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- 


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.) — 



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 

" 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. 
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. 



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. 

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- 


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. 



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 



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 



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 


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. 

25), ©eoKArjTJs-. (2.) b« Dlt!?, "placed by 

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 

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. 



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 



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. 



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). 


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). 


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 



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 

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 

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. 



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 


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 



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 


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% 


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 


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. 



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- 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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. 


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- 

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 


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 

(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 

(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. 



condoned, as it were, by David in his noble Lamen- 

(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 


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 

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] 



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 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. 




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. 


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 

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- 

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. 


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 

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- 


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- 



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 

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 

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 



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 


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 


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- 

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 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. 

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. 


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- 


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 

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- 


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 

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 


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- 

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 

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. 

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, 


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. 



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 



« 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- 

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. 


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- 


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 breas