Skip to main content

Full text of "Dictionary of the Bible .."

See other formats



• .* 




^ tint ®hw%%/ ft 




Presented by c3Tl:Ar\C^a cSlTcS^TV . 
Division ^^T 




I *'*•*•■■ V'V*^ .••.>■••'' 
















%\z Hiter0tDe prf00, CambriDgc* 


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

HuRD AND Houghton, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. 






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

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

terbury ; late Fellow of St. fJohn'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 Bro^vn, M. A., Vice-Principal of King Wil- 
liam's College, Isle of Man ; late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 

R. W. B. Ven. Robert AVilliam Browne, M. A., Archdeacon of Bath, and 
Canon of Wells. 

E. H. B. Right Rev. Edward Harold Browne, D. D., Lord Bishop of Ely. 
W. T. B. 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 Lidia. 
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 Har- 

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., 

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




F. G. 

F. W. G. 


H. B. H. 

E. H— s. 

H. H. 

A. C. H. 

J. A. H. 

J. D. H. 

J. J. H. 

W. H. 

J. S. H. 

E. H. 
W. B. J. 

A. H. L. 

S. L. 

J. B. L. 



. M. 












S. P 



















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., Ai-chdeacon of Sud- 
bury, and Rector of Ickworth. 
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. 

Augustine'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 Peroa\t^e, 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 Literatm-e, Assem- 



bl/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. Hexry 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 College, 

Rev. Edmund Venables, M. A., Bonchurch, Isle of Wight. 
Rev. Brooke Foss Westcott, M. A., Assistant Master of Harrow 

School ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Rev. Christopher Wordsworth, D. D., Canon of Westminster. 
William Aldis Wright, M. A., Librarian of Trinity College, Cam' 









. A. 



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., Yale 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 Institu- 

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. 


INITlAl & 

A. C. K. Prof. AsAHEL Clark Kendrick, D. D., University of Rochester, X. Y. 

C. M. M. Prof. Charles Marsh Mead, Ph. D., Theol. Sem., Andover, Mass. 

E. A. P. Prof. Edwards Amasa Park, D. D., Theol. Seminary, Andover, Mass. 

W. E. P. Rev. William Edwards Park, Lawrence, 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. 

C. E. S. Rev. Calvln Ellis Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn. 

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. V. A. V. Rev. Cornelius V. A. Van Dyck, D. D., Behut, Syria. 

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. 

S. W. Rev. Samuel Wolcott, D. D., Cleveland, Ohio. 

T. D. W. President Theodore Dwight Woolsey, D. D., LL. D., Yale College, 
New Haven, Conn. 

*-* 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 Aldlne edition of the Septuagint, 1518. 

Alex. The Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent.), edited by Baber, 1816-28. 

A. V. The authorized (common) English version of the Bible. 

Comp. The Septuagint as printed in the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514-17, published 

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

Elom. The Roman edition of the Septuagint, 1587. The readings of the Septuagin 

for which no authority is specified are also fi'om this source. 
Sin. The Codex SInaiticus (4th cent.), published by Tischendorf in 1862. This 

and FA. are parts of the same nianuscript. 
Vat. The Codex Vaticanus 1209 (4th cent.), according to Mai's edition, published 

by Vercellone in 1857. "Vat. H." denotes readings of the MS. (differing 

from Mai), given in Holmes and Parsons's edition of the Septuagint, 1798- 

1827. " Vat.^ " distinguishes the primary reading of the MS. from " Vat.'^ " 

or " 2. m.," the alteration of a later reviser. 




llE'aEM-ME'LECH CrybT^ D^-l [friend 
of the kimjl: 'Ap/Setretp 6 ^aaiKevs\ Alex. Ap- 
^efffffep /3. : Rogmimii^kch). The names of 
Sherezer and Kegem-melech occur in an olisciire 
passage of Zechariah (vii. 2). I'hej 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 ca|)tive 
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, Kegem-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, 1-3. 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 difficult to conjecture. From its con- 
nection with Sherezer, the name Kegem-melech 
(lit. " king's friend," comp. 1 Chr. xxvii. 33), was 
probably an Assyrian title of office. W. A. W. 

piXttipos)- 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- 

Ciccar ("ISSPT, literally -'the round"), a word 
the topographical application of which is not clear, 
but which seems in its earliest occurrences to de- 
note the circle or oasis of cultivation in which 
stood Sodom and Gomorrah and the rest of the 
five "cities of the Ciccar" (Gen. xiii. 10, 11, 12, 


six. 17, 25, 28, 29; Deut. xxxiv. 3). Elsewhere 
it has a wider meaning, though still attached to 
the Jordan (2 Sam. xviii. 23 ; i K. vii. 40 ; 2 Chr. 
iv. 17; Neh. iii. 22, xii. 28). It is in this less 
restricted sense that Trfpix<^pos occurs in the New 
Test. In Matt. iii. 5 and lAike 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 Quiiraniuna (see Map, vol. ii. p. 
064), a densely populated region, and important 
enough to be reckoned as a distinct section of Pal- 
estine — "Jerusalem, Judfea, and all the arron- 
dissement" of Jordan " (Matt. iii. 5, also Luke vii. 
17). [.IuD.E.\, WiLDEHNESs OK, Amer. ed.] It 
is also applied to the district of Gennesaret, a re- 
gion which presents certain similarities to that of 
.lericho, 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). 


REHABI'AH (n^?n"l in 1 Chr. xxiii.; 

elsewhere -in^^nT \_whoin Jehovah enlarges] : 
'Pa^ia, [Vat.] Alex. Paa^ia, in 1 Chr. xxiii.; 
'PaaySi'aj, 1 Chr. xxiv.: 'PajS/a?, Alex. Paafiias, 
1 Chr. xxvi. : Jiolw/Aa, Ralinbia in 1 Chr. xxvi.). 
The only son of Eliezer, the son of Moses, and 
the father of Isshiah, or Jeshaiah (1 ( 'hr. xxiii. 
17, xxiv. 21, xxvi. 25). His descendants were 

RE'HOB (S'^nn [and ^H"!, street, marker 
phice]: 'Padl3, ['Pow>:] Nohob)! 1. The father 
of Hadadezer king of Zobah, whom David smote 
at the Euphrates (2 Sam. viii. 3, 12). Josephus 
{A7it vii. 5, § 1) calls him 'Apaos, and the Old 
Latin Version Arachus, and Blayney (on Zech. ix. 
1) thinks this was his real name, and that he was 
called Rehob, or "charioteer," from the number of 
chariots in his possession. The name appears to 
be peculiarly Syrian, for we find a district of SyTia 
called Rehob, or Beth-Kehob (2 Sam. x. 6, 8). 

a Thus Jerome — " rejjiones in 
meJius .lonlane.'' Huit." 

■irniitu per qaa« 



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

\y. A. W. 

RE'HOB (2n"1 [as aliove]). The name of 
more than one place in the extreme north of the 
Holy Land. 

1. ([Rom. 'Po<{j3; Vat.] Paa/3 ; Alex. Poa!/3: 
/?('//o6. )« The northern limit of the exploration 
of the spies (Num. xiii. 21). It is specified as 
being "as men come unto Haniath,'" or, as the 
phrase is elsewhere rendered, " at the entrance of 
Hamata, ' i. e. at the commencement of the terri- 
tory of that name, hy which in the early books of 
the Bible the great valley of Lebanon, the Bibi^ah 
of the Prophets, and the Buka'a of the modern 
Arabs, seems to be roughly designated. This, and 
the consideration of the improbability that the 
spies went farther than the upper end of the .Jor- 
dan Valley (Kob. Blbl. lies. iii. -371), seems to fix 
the position of Itehob as not far from 'J ell el-Kady 
and Banias. This is confirmed by the statement 
of Judg. xviii. 28, that Laish or Dan ( Tell el-KaJy) 
was "in the valley that is by Beth-rehob." No 
trace of the name of Kehob or Beth-rehob has yet 
been met with in this direction. Dr. Robinson 
proposes to identify it with fhm'in, 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 l»ound- 
aries of the Holy Land on the north and east it 
may be satisfactory to know that a place called 
Riihaibth exists in the plain of Jevud, about 2.5 
miles N. E. of Damascus, and 12 N. of the north- 
ernmost of the three lakes (see the Maps of Van 
de Velde and Porter). 

There is no reason to doubt that this Rehob or 
Beth-rehob was identical with the place mentioned 
under both names in 2 '6dm. x. 0, 8,'' in connection 
with Maacah. which was also in the upper district 
of the fhih'h. 

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

2. ('Paa/3: Alex. Poo/S: liohob), one of the 
towns allotted to Asher (.losh. xix. 28), and which 
from the list appears to have been in close prox- 
imity to Zidon. It is named between Kbron, 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. CPaav, ['Paa/S, 'Eped, 'Po&>;3:] Alex. Paw^, 
[Poco/3:] Riihob, Rochcb.) Asher contained another 
Kehob (.Josh. xix. 30); but the situation of tiiis, 
like the former, remains at present unknown. One 
of fflife two, it is difficult to say which, was allotted 
to the (Jershonite Levites (.losh. xxi. -"il ; 1 Chr. 
vi. 75), and one of its Canaanite inhabitants re- 
tained possession (.ludg. i. 31). 'I'lie mention of 
Apbik in this latter passage may imply that the 
Rehol) referred to was that of .losli. xix. 30. This, 
Kusebius and .lerome ( Uiiomdg/ictni, " Roob ") con- 
fuse with the Rehob of the spies, and place four 
Roman miles from Scythopolis. The place they 
refer to still survives as Rehab, 3^ miles S. of 
Beis'tn, but their identification of a town in that 

« Targum Pseudojon. n^^lS^G, '. '• TrAaTetoi, 
itre*t3 ; and Samaritan Vers. ''SnC 


position with one in the territory of Asher is ob- 
\iously inaccurate. (t. 

KEHOBO'AM (D^^n"?, enlarger vf tht 
people — see Ex. xxxiv. 20, and compare the name 
EupvSriiuos'- 'Po^od/J.'- Roboam), son of Solomon, 
by the Anmionite princess Naaniah (1 K. xiv. 21, 
31), and bis successor (1 K. xi. 43). Erom the 
earliest peiiod of Jewish history we perceive sj nip- 
toms that the confederation of the tribes was but 
imperfectly cemented. The powerful Ephraim couid 
never brook a position of inferiority. Throughout 
the Book of Judges (viii. 1, xii. 1) the Ephrainiites 
show a spirit oi resentful jealousy when any enter- 
prise is undertaken without their concurrence and 
active participation. Erom them had sprung 
•loshua, and afterwards (by his place of liirth) 
Sanniel 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 
.losejih, 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. Durins; the earlier history, partly 
from the physical structure and situation of its 
territory (Stanley, «S. if P.p. 102), 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 [Ji'kaii]. 
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 .ludah" (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 Taliernacle 
there, he transferred from Ephraim the greatness 
which had attached to Shechem as the ancient 
capital, and to .^Jiiloh as the seat of the national 
worship. In spite of this he seems to have enjoyed 
great personal ]iopu!arity among the Ephrainiites, 
and to have treated many of them with special 
favor (1 Chr. xii. 30, xxvii. 10, 14), yet this roused 
the jealousy of .ludah. and probably led to the revolt 
of Absalom. [Ai'.s.\I-()M.] Even after that peril- 
ous crisis was past, tiie old rivalry broke out afresh, 
and almost led to another insurrection (2 Sam. xx. 
1, &C.-). Compare Ps Ixxviii. CO, 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 irrelisrioua 
character, alienated the prophets and provoked the 
displeasure of (iod. When Solomon's strons: hand 
was withdrawn the crisis came. Rehoboani se- 
lected Shechem as the place of his coronation, 
probably as an act of concession to the Ephrainjites 
and perhaps in deference to the suggestions of those 
old and wise counselldrs of his father, whose advice 
he afterwards unhai)pily 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 sever* 

'> Here the name is written in the fuller form oi 


burdens imposed b}' Solomon, and Rehoho.ini prom- 
ised tliem an answer in tliree dajs, duriiii;; wliicli 
time lie consulted first liis 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 little 
finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. . . 
. . . I will add to your yoke; my father hath 
"eha-stised you with whips, but I will chastise you 
with scorpions" (i. e. scourges furnished with 
sharp points"). Thereupon arose the formidalile 
gong of insurrection, heard once before when the 
tribes quarreled after David's return from the war 
with Absalom: — 

What portion have we in DaviJ ? 
What iaheritance in Jesse's son ? 

To your tents, Israel I 

Now see to thy own house, David 1 

Rehoboam sent Adorani 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 stoned 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 was sunnnoned by the 
Ephraimites from Egypt (to which country he had 
fled from the anger of Solomon) to lie 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 lienrd 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 mnkes no mention 
of Jeroboam in this chapter till ver. 20, substi- 
tuting in ver. 3 for " Jeroboam and all the congre- 
pation of Israel came and spoke unto Rehoboam " 
the words, koI iKa,\f]aev b Aabr npbs rbu ^a(ri\^a 
'Vo^odfj.. So too Jeroboam's name is omitted by 
the LXX. in ver. 12. Aloreover 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 Jeroboam's biography than 
the Hebrew. [.Ierobo.vm.] In this we read that 
after Solomon's death he returned to his natije 
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 
ihechem to assume the crown. Eron- 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 
jvent, Jeroboam requested from the king of I'.gypt 

" So in Latin, icorpio, according to Isidore (Orn;'^'. 
f. 27), is " virga nodosa et aculeata, quia arcuato vul- 
^»n in corpus intiigitur" {Faceioiati, 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 chili 
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 reconquering 
Israel. The expedition, however, was forbidden by 
the prophet Sheniaiah, who assured them that tlie 
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). 
Kehoboam now occupied himself in strengthening 
the territories which remained to him, by building 
a number of fortresses of which the names are 
given in 2 Chr. xi. 6-10, forming a girdle of 
"fenced cities" round Jerusalem. The pure wor- 
ship of God was maintained in Judah, and the 
Levites and many pious Israelites from the North, 
vexed at the calf-idolatry introduced by .leroboam 
at Dan and Bethel, in imitation of the I'>gyptian 
worship of Mnevis, came and settled in the southern 
kingdoui and added to its power. But Rehoboam 
did not check the introduction of heathen abomina- 
tions into his capital: the lascivious worship of 
.\shtoreth was allowed to exist by the side of the 
true religion (an inheritance of evil doubtless left 
by Solomon), "images" (of Baal and his fellow 
divinities) were set up, and the worst immoralities 
were tolerated (1 K. xiv. 22-24). These evils were 
punished and put down by the terrible 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, ^ouaaKLfj,), 
connected himself, as we have seen, with .Jeroboam 
That he was incited by him to attack Judah is 
very probable: at all events in the 5th year of 
Rehoboam's reign the country was invaded by a 
host of l''.gyptians 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 W. 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 Egyptians 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 chatiged since his fother's 
time (Ewald, Geschic/Ue di-s I'. /. iii. 348, 464). 
Shishak's success is commemorated by sculptures 
<liscovered by ('hampollion on the outside of the 
great Temple at Karnak, where among a long list 
of captured towns and provinces occurs the name 
Ifclc/d Judfili (kingdom of -ludah). It is <a.\d 



thiU the features of the captives in these sculptures 
are umiiistakal)ly Jewish (Rawlinson, Iltrodviiis, 
ii. :J76, and Bmnpton Lectures, p. 126; Bunseii, 
Kyypt, iii. '242). After this great humiliation the 
moral condition of Judah seems to have improved 
(2 Chr. xii. 12), and the rest of Rehoboani'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. J75 at the aire 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 interpretation of 2 Chr. xiii. 7, where he is 
called " young "' (i. e. neio to his woi-k, inexpe- 
rienced) and "tender-hearted'' (23 ^"TJ^, lonnt- 
iiiff in resolution und s/iirii). He had 18 wives, 
60 concubines, 28 sons, and 60 daughters. The 
wisest tiling recorded of him in Scripture is that 
he refused to waste away his sons' energies in the 
wretched existence of an Kastern zenana, in which 
we may iiifei-, from his helplessness at the age of 
41, that he had himself been educated, but dis- 
persed them in conmiand 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: M.ia«hah he loved best 
of all, and to her son Al)ijali 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 1.587], Leipsic, 1850. G. E. L. C. 

REHO'BOTH (n'inn~) [streets, wide 

places]: Samar. mSTl"! : evpvxi^pia- Veneto- 
Gk. al nAareTai : Latitudo). The third of the series 
of wells dui; liy Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 22). He celelirates 
his triumph and bestows its name on the well in a 
fragiiient of poetry of the same nature as those in 
which Jacob's wives give names to his successive 
children: '-He calleil the name of it Rehoboth 
(•room,') and said, — 

I Because norr Jehovah hath-m»de-room for us 
And we shall incre.^se 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. 2-3), an expression 
which is always used of motion towards the Land 
of promise. The position of Gerar has not been 
definitely ascertained, luit it seems to have lain a 
fevF miles to the S. of Gaza and nearly due \L of 
Beer-sheba. In this direction, therefore, if any- 
where, the wells Sitnah, Esek, and Rehoboth, 
should be searched for. A Wndy Ruhaibeli, con- 
taining the ruins of a town of tiie same name, 
with a large well," is crossed by the road from 
Klinn en-Nukhl to Hebron, by which I'alestine 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- 
We seems unsafe, without further proof, to identify 
it with Reholioth, as Rowlands (in Williams' fJuli/ 
City, I. 465), Stewart ( Tent awl Khan. p. 202), and 

a Dr. RobinsoD could not find the well. Dr. Stewart 
tound it " regularly built, 12 feet in circumference," 
vnt ''completely filled up." Mr. Rowlands describes 
it aa "an ancient well of living and good water." 
Who Bhall decide on testimony so curiously contra- 
lictorv ? 


Van de Velde* {Memoir, p. 343) have done. Al 
the same time, as is admitted by Dr. Roliinson, 
the existence of so large a place here, witiiout any 
apparent mention, is mysterious. All that can be 
said in favor of the identity of Biilinilieli with Reho- 
both is said by Dr. Bonar {Desert of iHnni, p. 316), 
and not without consideralile 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, Antoninus 
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. 

m^n"!; Sam. vers.c ]3t2D: 'Pow^iie ■n-6\is; 
Alex. PocjyScoy; platea ciiiPitis). One of the four 
cities built by Asshur, or by Nimrod in Asshur, 
according as this difficult passage is translated. 
The four were Nineveli; Rehoboth-Ir; Calah ; 
and Resen, between Nine\eh and Calah (Gen. x. 
11). Nothing certain is known of its position. 
The name of Pudiabeli 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 Khaliur. Hutli are said to con- 
tain extensive ancient remains That on the east- 
ern bank bears the affix of mulik or royal, and this 
Bunsen {Bibelwerk) and Kalisch {Genesis, p. 261) 
propose as the representative of Rehoboth. Its 
distance from Kalth-Sheryhat and Nimriid (nearly 
200 miles) is perhaps an obstacle to this identifica- 
tion. Sir H. Rawlinson (Athemeuin, .April 15, 
1854) suggests Selemiydi in the immediate neigh- 
borhood of Kalah, " where there are still extensive 
ruins of the Assyrian period," but no sulisequent 
discoveries appear to have confinned this sugges- 
tion. The Samaritan Version (*e above) reads 
Sutccin for Rehoboth ; and it is remarkable that 
the name Sutcan should be found in connection 
with Calah in an inscription on the lireast of a 
statue of the god Nebo which Sir H. Raw4inson 
disinterred at Ximn'id {Atlieniertm, as above). 
The Sutcan of the Samaritan Version is com- 
monly supposed to denote the Sittacene of the 
Greek geographers (^Viner, Jiealwb. '• Rechoboth 
Ir"). But Sittacene was a district, and not a 
city as Reholioth-lr 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 
Qiuestiones cid (lencsim (probably from Jewish 
sources), considers Reliobotli-Ir as referring to 
Nineveh, and as meaning tlie "streets of the 
city." The reading of the Targums of .lonathan, 
Jerusalem, and Rabl)i ,losepli,on (ien.and 1 Chcon., 
viz., Platidh, Platiutlin, are prol)al]ly only tran- 
scriptions of the Greek word 7rAa7e7ai, which, as 
found in the well-known ancient city PlatEea, is 
the exact equivalent of Reholioth. Kaplan, the 
Jewish geographer {Erets Kedumim), identifies 

i> In his Travels Van de Velde inclines to place it, 
or at any rate one of Isaac's wells, at B r Isfk, about 
six miles S. W. of B^it Jibrin {Si/r. and Put. ii. 146). 

<: The Arabic translation of this version (Kuehnen 
adheres to the Hebrew text, having K'l'taftc/i el-M* 


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


■irrSn : 'PooiBwd — in Chr. 'Pa!/8ui0 — t] Trapa 
KorafiSu ; Ales. Po.o0ci)d in each : c/« Juciu 
Rolwboih ; Rolioboth qua juxta amneni situ 
est). The city of a certain Saul or Shaul, 
one of the early kings of the Edoniites (Gtn. 
xixTi. 37; 1 Chr. i. 48). The affix "the 
river," fixes the situation of Kehoboth as on the 
Euphrates, emphatically " the river " to the iidiabi- 
tants of Western Asia. [Rivek.] The name 
still remains attached *o two spots on the Euphra- 
tes; the one simply ^'(//((ie/j. on the right bank, 
eight miles below the junction of the Khabur, 
and about three miles west of the river (Chesney, 
Evphr., i. 119, ii. GIO, and map iv.), the otiier 
four or five miles further down on the left bank. 
The latter is said to be called Hahabeh-mulik, 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 su[ipose that the limits of 
F-dom ever extended to the Euphrates, and there- 
fore the occurrence of the name in the lists of 
kings of Edom woidd 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. IGll). 

RE'HUM (D^m [compassionate]: Peovfj.; 
[Vat. omits;] Alex, lepeov/j.'- Jieltum). 1. One 
of the " children of the province " who went up 
from Bab} Ion with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 2). In 
Neh. vii. 7 he is called Nehuji, and in 1 Esdr. v. 
8 RoiJius. 

2. ([Vat. PaouX, Paov/j.'-] Renin.) " Rehum 
the chancellor," with Shimshai the scribe, and 
others, wrote to Artaxerxes to prevail upon him 
to stop the 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 
game 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, D37tp"753, be'el-le'em, 
lit. "lord of decree," is left untranslated in the 
LXX. BaXTUfx, and the Vulgate Beelteem ; and 
the rendering "chancellor" in the A. V. appears 
to have been derived from Kimchi and others, who 
.xplain it, in consequence of its connection with 
''Bcribe,"by the Hebrew word which is usually 
tendered " recorder." This appears to have been 
"he view taken by the author of 1 Esdr. ii. 2o, 6 
ypifpuiv Toc ■KpoaiziwrovTa, and by Josephus (.I/)/. 
d. 2, § 1), TTOfTa TO TTpaTTi/iieva ypd(pcov- The 
lornier of these seems to be a gloss, for the Chaldee 
^tle is also represented by BecAre'^/xos. 

3. {'Paov/j,; [Vat. Baaoud; E.A.. Baaaovd:] 

* The exietenee of the second rests but on slender 
tundatiou. It is shown in the map in Layard's Nineveh 
Ilk' Beaton, and is mentioned by the two Jewish au- 

REKEM 2701 

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

4. i'Peovfj.; [Vat. Alex. FA. (joined with 
part of the next word) Paovfx-]) One of tht 
chief of the people, who signed the covenant with 
Nehemiah (Neh. x. 25). 

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

RET C^VT? [/''■'6«';%, social]: [Rom. 'P-qal; 
Vat. Alex.] Prjcrei:'' 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 
( Qiuest. Hebr. 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 
(G'enc/i. iii. 2G6 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 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 

nV73, 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 equivalent of 
C^^^n, elsewhere translated "loins." G. 

RE'KEM (^TD. [yariegnted garden]: 'PoKoi 
[Vat. PoKOfx], 'Po06k; Alex. Poko/j.: Recem). 
1. One of the five kings or chieftains of JMidian 
slain by the Israelites (Num. xxxi. 8; Josh. xiii. 
21) at the time that Balaam fell. 

2. {'PiK6jjL\ Alex. PoKo/j.-) 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, 
Heliron, are all names of places, as well as Maon 
and Beth-zur. In .losh. 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 (D|7.T^ [as above] : perhaps Kacpaf 
Ka\ Na/cai/: Alex. P^Kffi: Recem). One of the towns 
of the allotment of Benjamin (.losh. xviii. 27). It 
occurs between JMozAii {/I'im-.Uotsa) and Ikpeel. 
No one, not even Schwarz, has attempted to iden- 

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

S Heading ^ for 17. 



tify it •R-ith any existing site. But may Uiere not 
be a trace of the name in Ain Knriin, the well- 
known spring west of Jerusalem ? It is within a 
very short distance of Motsah, provided Kidonith 
be Motsah, as the writer has already suggested. 


EEMALI'AH (^H^^CiT [whom Jehovah 
a.lorns, Ges.] 'Po^ueAi'as i" Kings and Isaiah, 
"Po/xe\ia in Chr.; [Vat. PoyueAia (gen.) in Is. 
vii. 1:] Jiomelia). 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 [hei(/ht ?] : 'Pefifids; Alex. 
Vaufxad- Raiiicih). One of the towns of Issachar 
(.Josh. xix. 21), occurring in the list next to En- 
gaunim, the modern Jenhi. It is probably (though 
not certainly) a distinct place from the Kamotm 
of 1 Chr. vi. 73. A place beai-ing the name of 
Jinmeli is found on the west of the track from 
Samaria to Jen'in, about 6 miles N. of the former 
and 9 S- W. of the latter (Porter, Ilnndb. p. 348 '( ; 
Van de Velde, Map). Its situation, on an isolated 
rocky tell in the middle of a green jdain buried in 
the hills, is quite in accordance with its name, 
which is probably a mere variation of Raniah, 
" height." But it appears to be too far south to 
be within the territory of Issachar, which, as far as 
the scanty indications of tiie record can be made 
out, can hardly have extended below the southern 
border of the plain of Esdraelon. 

For Schwarz's conjecture that Rnmeh is Ra- 
MATHAIM-ZOPHIJI, see that article (iii. 2672). 


REM'MON C|""1S"1, i. e. Rimmon [pome- 
granatt\: 'Epef^fxccv--" Alex. Pe^^cog: lieinmon). 
A town in the allotment of Simeon, one of a group 
of four (.losh. xix. 7 ). It is the same place which 
is elsewhere accurately given in the A. V^ as Rim- 
Biox; the inaccuracy both in this case and that of 
Remmox-jietiioak having no doubt arisen from 
our translators inad\-ertently following the Vulgate, 
which again followed the LXX. G. 

REM'MON-METH'OAR (nwhsn Y'"2'7, 
i. e. Rimmon ham-niethoar [pomeijranate^ : 'Pe/j,- 
^(I'vad Madapao^d.', Alex. Pifxfxoovafx pLadapt/j.' 
Rtiniiion, Ainthar). A place which formed one of 
Ihe 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 

")Sn, 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, Tlies. p. 1292 n. Rudiger, ib. 1491 a; Fiirst, 
Handwb. ii. 512 a, and Bunsen, as well as of the 
wicient .lewish commentator Rashi, who quotes as 
lis authority the Targum of .Jonathan, the text of 
vhich has iiowever 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 l.XX. and Vulgate as above, and by the 
Peshito, .luuius and Tremellius, and Luther. The 
A. V. has here further erroneously followed the 


Vulgate in giving the first part of the name u 
Reuimon instead of Rimmon. 

This Rimmon does not appear to have been 
known to EuSebius and .lerome, but it is mentioned 
liy the early traveller Parchi, who says that it is 
called Rumaneh, and stands an hour south of Sep- 
phoris (Zunz's Beitjniinn., ii. 433). If for south 
we read north, this is m close agreement with the 
statements of Dr. Robinson {BtU. Jies. iii. 110), and 
Mr. Van de Velde (Map; Memoir, p. 344), who 
place Rummdneh on the S. border of the Plain of 
Buttmif, 3 miles N. N. E. of Stffarith. It is 
ditBcult, howe\er, 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 
tbrm of Uinmah, and again, in the parallel lists of 
Chronicles (1 Chr. vi. 77) as Rimmono (A. V. 

Rl.M.MON). G. 

REM'PHAN ('P€M<?)o«',[Lachm. Tisch. Treg.J 
'Pe<pdv- Remphnm, Acts vii. 43): and CHITJN 

(^^"3 : "PaKpdv, 'Pofi.(pa, Comjjl. Am. v. 26) have 
been su])posed to be names of an idol worshipped 
by the Israelites in the wilderness, but seem to be 
the names of two idols. The second occurs in 
Amos, in the Heb. : the first, in a quotation of that 
passage in St. 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 difficulty 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 Reniphan an Egyptian equiv- 
alent substituted by the LXX. The former, ren- 
dered Saturn in the Syr., was compared with the 

Arab, and Pers. ... I «., 

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 Heljrew Chiun. Egyptology has, 
however, shown that this is not the true explana- 
tion. Among the foreign divinities worshipped in 
I'^gypt, two, the god RENPU, perhaps pronounced 
REMPU, and the goddess KEN, occur together. 
Before endeavoring to explain the passages in which 
Chiun and Reniphan are mentioned, it will be 
desirable to sjieak, on the evidence of the monu- 
ments^ of the foreign gods worshipped in Egypt, 
particularly RI'INPU and KEN, and of the idolatry 
of the Israelites while in that country. 

Besides those di\inities 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 ease with the principal divinity of Memphis, 
Ptah, the Egyptian Hephaestus. The name I'tah 
is from a Semitic root, for it signifies " open," and 

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

the planet Saturn," 

a The LXX. here combine the Ain and Rimmon of no trace in tiie Hebrew, but wliich is possibly tb« 
die A. V. info one name, and make up the four cities I Tochen of 1 Chr. iv. 32 — in the LXX. of that pa88ai{«. 
■rf tiiis group by iusertiui; a feioAxo, of which there is ©oKxa. 


the monuments. In this case there can be no 
doubt that the introduction took place at an ex- 
tremely eaiiy date, as the name of Ptah occuis in 
very old tombs in the necropolis of- Memphis, and 
is found throughout the reliirious 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 TltxTaiKot or 
Tlaraiicot, whose images, according to Herudotus, 
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 iour 
names are immediately recognized to be non Kg\p 
tian. ITiey are KENPU, and the goddesses KKX. 
ANTA, and ASTAK TA. 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. 

RENPU, 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 Egyjit, 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 

KEX is represented perfectly naked, holding in 
both hands corn, and standing upon a lion. In the 
last particular the figure of a goddess at Maltheiy- 
yeh in Assyria may l)e compared (Layard, Xinevi;/i, 
ii. 212). From this occurrence of a similar repre- 
sentation, from her being naked and carrying corn, 
and from her being worshipped with KHIC.M, we 
may suppose that KEX convsp.inded to the Syrian 
goddess, at least when the latter had the char.icter 
of Venus. She is also called IvErESH, which is 
the name in hieroglyphics of the great Hittite town 
on the Orontes. This in the present case is prob- 
ably a title, ntyip : it can scarcely be the name 
of a town where she was worshipped, applied to her 
as personifying it. 

AXATA appears to lie Anaitis, and her foreign 
character seeuis almost certain from her being 
jointly worshipped with REXPU and KEX. 

ASTARTA is of course the Ashtoreth of 

On a tablet in the British Museum the principal 
subject is a group representing KEN, having 
KHEMon one side and REXPU on the other: 
beneath is an adoration of AN.A. TA. On the half 
of another tablet KEN and KHEM occur, and a 
dedication to RENPU and KE TESH. 

We have no clew to the exact time of the intro- 
duction of these divinities into Egypt, nor except in 
ons case, to any particular places of their worship. 
TL*ir r.ames occur a,s early as the period of the 
XVIilth and XlXth dynasties, and it is therefore 
not improbable that they were introduced by tlie 
Shepherds. ASTARTA is mentioned in a tablet 
of Amenoph II., opposite Memphis, wiiich leads to 
the conjecture that she w;is the foreign Venus there 
worshipped, iu the quarter of the Phoenicians of 



<» In illustration of this probable proimneiation. we 
may cite the occurrence iu hieroglvpliics of KKXPA 
or R.\NP, "youth, young, to renew ; "• and. iu Ooptio,. 

If the supposed u iinatd 

p*i-jiini; pujuajj 

Tyre, according to Herodotus (ii. 112). It is ob- 
servable that the Shepherds worshipped SUTEKH, 
corresponding to SETH, and also called 15.\R, that 
is, Baal, and that, under king APEPEE, he was 
the sole god of the foreigners. SUTEKH was 
probal)ly 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 Rl'^XPU 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, KHliM. 
Their similarity to Baal and Ashtoreth seems 
strouLT, and perhaps it is not imreasonable to sup- 
pose that they were the divinities of some tribe 
from the east, not of Phoenicians or Canaanites, 
settled in Egypt during the Shepherd-period. The 
naked goddess KEN woukl suggest such worship as 
that of the Babylonian Mylitta, but the thoroughly 
Siiemite appearance of REXPU 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 
neighlioring countries, as far as they are known to 
us, inclines us to look to Arabia, of which the early 
mythology is extremely obscure. 

Tiie 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- 
PH.A.N as worshipped iu 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 siu;ht, would appear to be an 
image of Apis of Alemphis, 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. Salzmami, and those 
found in toml)S hi 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. 

\\'e can now endeavor to explain the passages in 
which Chiun and Fiemphan occur. The Masoretic 
text of Amos v. 211 reads thus: " But ye bare the 
tent [or ' tabernacle '] of your king and Chiun your 
images, the star of your gods [or 'your god'], 
which ye made for yourselves." In the LXX. we 
find remarkable differences : it i-eads: Kal aveAa- 
/Sere t7)c (Tki)u)^v rav MoAoXi f" ' tJ) aarpov rov 
Oeov v/xcoi' 'Paicpaf, rovs tvitovs avTciv ovs eVyiTJ- 
crare kavTols. 1 lie Vulg. ai^rees with the Masoretic 
text in the order of the clauses, though omitting 
Chiun or Reniphan. " Kt |X)rt:istis tabernaculum 
Moloch vestro, et imaginem idolorum vestrorum, 
sidus dei vestri, quae fecistis vobis."' The passagfl 
is cited in the Acts almost in the words of the 
LXX. ; " Yea, ye took up the taliernaoie of Moloch, 
and the star of your sod Kemphan, figures which 
ye made to worship them" (Kal dceAa^ere t?V 

S. OAinp, "a year;'- so MKNNUi'U, Memphis, 

jULeiiSe, Aienqj, also ^ tiejiSe, 

015, and L.N-NUFIV, 0,x>bi.i. 



jKTjvrjv Tov Mo\6x, xal rh Ixarpov rov deov 
V/J.COV 'PefKpdv, Tovs rinrovs ovs iirofrtaaTe irpoa- 
Kvvi'iv avTois)- A slit,'ht change in the Helirew 
would enable us to reail xMoloch (iMalcani or Miloom) 
instead of "jour king." Be.yond this it is ex- 
tremely difficult to explain the differences. The 
substitution of Remphan for Chiun cannot be ac- 
counted for by verlial 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, " } our images which ye 
made for yourselves: " and if we further transpose 
Chiun to the place of " your god Remphan," in 

the LXX., D37Q niDD nS would correspond 

to "jVr) DD^nbS n"2lD nS, 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'? If we compare the Masoretic text and tlie 
supposed original, we perceive that in the former 

□2'^Q v2 "] 1*^3 corresponds in position to 2D1D 
DD"^n vS, and it does not seem an unwarrantable 
conjecture that ]1^3 having been by mistake writ- 
ten in the place of I2D1D by some copyist, 

CD''?27^ was also transposed. It appears to be 
more reasonaljle 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 Jloloch is supposed by 
Gesenius to have been an actual tent, and he com- 
pares the aKV\v^ Upd of the Carthaginians (Diod. 

Sic. sx. Go; Lex. s. v. i~1^3p). But there is 
some difficulty in the idea that the Israelites car- 
ried about so large an olijeot for the i)iirpose of 
idolatry, and it seems more likely that it was ^ 
small model of a larger tent or shrine. The read- 
ing Moloch appears preferaUe 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 IMoloeh was a name of the planet 
Saturn, and that this planet was evidently sup- 
posed by the ancient translators to be intended by 
Ciiiun and liemphan. The correspondence of lieni- 
phan or Kaiphan to Chiun is extremely remarkalile, 
and can, we think, only be accounted for by the 
supposition that tlie LXX. translator or translators 
of the prophet had Egyptian knowledge, and being 
thus acquainted with the ancient joint worsliip of 
Ken and Kenpu, 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 wece a planetary god; but the 
evidence for this, especially as partly founded upon 
an Arab, or Pers. word like Chiun, is not sutfi- 
tiently strong to enable us to lay any stress upon 
the agreement. In hieroglyphics the sign for a 
star is one of the two composing the word SEB, 
" to aiiore," and is undoubtedly there used in a 
gymbolical 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 Egyptia:\3y 
pi. 30 .\.). 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 Jloloch 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 Isi'aelites made the images of the false i:ods, 
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 remarkalile 
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 woi-sliipped 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 ^gyptiorum., Prolego- 
mena, L.) makes Remphah the equivalent of vtyiiin 
Cceli, that is Ltma, whose vorship was maintained 
in Egypt at an early day. His attempt, however, 
to prove that this was an Egyptian divinity, in his 
learned treatise Remplmh illustralus, is not borne 
out by the evidence of the monuments, the .Asiatic 
type of countenance being strongly marked in the 
delineations of this god. He is represented lirand- 
ishing a club. A good specimen is to be seen in 
the Museum of the Louvre at Paris (Salle dea 
Monuments Religieux, Armoire K), where is col- 
lected in one view a complete Egyptian Pantheon. 

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

Count Rouge considers Atp;sh or Kktesh and 
Anta or Anata to be different forms or char- 
acters of the same divinity, an Asiatic Venus, for 
tliouo-h she wears the same head-dress and diadem 
as the Egyptian goddess Hathor. 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 A>)ta 
she appears as the goddess of war, wielding a 
battle-axe, and holding a shield and lance. Such 
was also the character of Ana'itis, the war-god 
dess of the Persians and old Assyrians. Accord 
ing to Movers, Astahte was a divinity of a uni- 
versal character, whose worship, under variouj 
names, was world-wide. J. P. T. 


a characteristic of all superstitious devotion t« 
repeat endlessly certain words, especially the namei 


>f thi deities iiivoked, a practice which our Lord 
3esis;nates as ^arroXojia and TroAvXoyla, and 
severely condemns (Matt. vi. 7). 

Wlien the priests of Baal besought their God 
for fire to liiudle tlieir sacrifice, tliey cried inces- 
santly for several hours, in endless repetition, 
Baal hear ns, Baal hear us, Baal htar us, 
etc. (1 K. xviii. 20). 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 
Diiiia of the Epkesians, Great the Diana of the 
A'pheslans, Great the Diana of the Epliesia7is, 
etc., with the same endless re|>etition (Acts six. 28, 
3.)). In the same way, in the devotions of Pagan 
Rome, the people would cry out more than five 
hundred times without ceasing, Audi, Ccesar, 
Audi, Cicsar, Audi, Ccesar, etc. Among the 
Hindoos the sacred syllable Om, Oin, On, is re- 
peated as a praj'er thousands of times uninterrupt- 
edly. So the Roman Catholics repeat their Pater 
Nosltrs 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, a^d 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 ler\or. Such a 
style of prater rather shows a want of fervor; it 
is often the result of thoughtless affectation, 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 (bSD"l [whom God heals]: 
'Pa(t>a-fiA'- Raphael). Son of Shemaiah, the first- 
born of 01)ed-edom, and one of the gate-keepers 
of the Tabernacle, " able men for strength for the 
service" (1 Chr. xxvi. 7). 

RE'PHAH (nDT [riches]: '-patp-f,: Kapha). 
A son of Ephraim, and ancestor of Joshua the son 
of Nun (1 Chr. vii. 25). 

REPHA'IAH [3 syl.] (H^ST [healed of 
Jehovah]: 'Pa(/)aA; Alex. Pacpaia: Raphnia). 1. 
The sons of Rephaiah appear among the descend- 
ants of Zerubliabel in 1 Chr. iii. 21. In the 
Peshito-Syriac he is made the son of .Jesaiah. 

2. {"Paipaia. ) 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. Pa(/japa.] One of the sons of Tola, 
.he son of Issachar, •' heads of their fath ;r's house " 
1 Chr. vii. 2). 


4. [Sin. Pac^aiar.] 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 (Neb. iii. 9). He assisted in rebuilding 
the city wall under Nehemiah. 

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


D'^SS"] : ri KoiXas TU>v Tndvwv [Vat. Tsi-], finJ 
[1 Chr.] tUv Vi.yci.vrwv\ k. "?a.(pdiv [Vat. -fifi, 
Alex, -eiv] ; in Isaiah (pdpay^ o-repea), 2 Sam. v. 
18, 22, xxiii. 13; 1 Chr. xi. 1.5, xiv. 9; Is. xvii. 5. 
Also in .losh. xv. 8, and xviii. 16, where it is trans- 
lated in the .\. V. " the valley of the giants " (yr) 
"Patpdiv and 'E/xef 'Pacpaiv [Vat. -eiv, Alex, -^ijx] i 
A spot which was the scene of some of David's 
most remarkable adventures. He twice encoun- 
tered the Pliilistines 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 em])loy it, centuries 
alter, as a symbol of a tremeixlous impending judg- 
ment of God — nothing less than the desolation and 
destruction of the whole earth (Is. xxviii. 21. 22). 
[Pkkazim, mou.nt.] 

It was probably during the former of these two 
contests that the incident of the water of Beth- 
lehem (2 Sam. x.xiii. 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 (H ^^STl, with the def. 
article), and that not a usual one, is emplnyel. 
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 off the ripe crops, for which the valley was 
proverbial (Is. xvii. 5), just as at Pas-dammim 
(1 Chr. xi. 13) we fiiid 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 corn receiving their load 
of plunder. The "garrison," or the officer'^ 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 .Fosh. 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 nudlierry 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 l)een attached to the upland plain which 
stretches south of Jerusalem, and is crossed by the 

» There is no warrant for " down to the hold "' in 
A. V. Had it been 7^^ " down " might have been 
tdded with safety. 

d This is the rendering in the ancient and trust- 

worthy Syriac version of the rare word 71* H (2 Sam. 
xxiii. 13), rendered in our version " troop." 

c Netaib. The meaning is uncertain (see toI. ix 
353, note). 

'' According to Tohler {Tapoirrnphie, etc., ii. 404\ 
t3otowycus is the flrst who rwords this ideutificstion. 



load to Beflilehem — the el-Buk'ah of the modern 
Aratii5 (Tohler, .lerusulem, etc., ii. 401). But this, 
though ap]3ropriate enough as regards its prox- 
imity to Bethlehem, does not answer at all to the 
meaning of the Hebrew word Emtk, wliich appears 
always to desi<;nate an inclosed valley, never an 
open upland ])laiii like that in question," the level 
of which is as high, or nearly as high, as that of 
Mount Zion itself. [Valley.] Eusebius, ( Ono- 
mnflicon, 'Pa<paeiv and 'Efj.eKpa(pafiij.) calls it the 
valley of the Philistines (Koi\ai aWocpvAoov), and 
places it '-on the north of Jerusalem," in the tribe 
of Benjamin. 

A position N. W. of the city is adopted by 
Fiirst {Uandwb. ii. 38-3 6), apparently on the 
ground of the terms of Josh. xv. 8 and xviii. IfJ, 
which certainly do leave it doubtful whether the 
valley is on the north of the boundary or the 
boundary on the north of the vaUey; and Tobler, 
in his last investigations (3We Wanderun;/, p. 202 >, 
conclusively adopts the Wndy der Jusin ( W. 
Mnklmor, in Van de Velde's map), one of the side 
valleys of the great Wndy Beit //nniii'i, as the 
valley of Itephaim. This j)osition is open to the 
obvious objection of too great distance from both 
Bethlehem and the cave of AduUani (according to 
any position assignable to the latter) to meet the 
requirements of 2 Sam. xxiii. 13. 

The valley a]jpears 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 tlieir 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 6). " t; 

REPH'IDIM (C"!?"] : 'Pa^iSeiV : [liapli- 
idim]). Ex. xvii. 1, 8; xix. 2. The name means 
"rests" or "stays;" the place lies in tlie march 
of the Israelites from l'".gypt to Sinai. The " wil- 
derness of Sin" was succeeded by Kephidim 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 Eephidini. [Alush; Dophkah.] 
Lepsius' view is that Mount Serial is the true 
Horeh, and that Rephidim is Wady Feiran, the 
»vell known valley, richer in water and vegetation 
l/lian any other in the peninsula (Lepsius' Tow- 
from Thebes io Siutii, 1845, pp. 21, 37). This 
would account for the expectation of finding water 
Bere, which, however, from some unexplained cause 
failed. In Ex. xvii. G, "the rock in Horeb'" is 
naiued as lie source of the water miraculously sup- 
plied. Oi. the other hand, the language used Ex. 

a On (lie other hand it is Bomewhat singular that 
iie modern name for this upland plain, Biilca^ah, 
•hould be the Piime with that of the great inclosed 
ralley of I/ebanon, which differs from it as widely as 
it caa differ from the signification of Emeh. There is 
110 connection between Buk'ali and Baca ; they are 
waentially distinct. 

i> Uu thU Lepsius remarks that iiobinson would 


xix. 1, 2, seems precise, as regards the point that 
the journey from Rephidim to Siwii 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 d:.y 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 Sir, 
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 -)- 4 :^ 12, leaving two days 
over from the fourteen. The first grand object 
being the arrival at Sinai, the inteivening distance 
may probalily 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-lS/ieikh,>> running 
from N. E. to S. W., on the W. side of Gebel 
Fureia, opposite the northern face of the modern 
Horeb. [SixAi.] It joins the Wady Feiran. 
The exact spot of Rotiinson's Rephidim is a defile 
in the esli-S/ieikh visited and described by Burck- 
hardt {Syria, etc., p. 488) as at about five hours' 
distance from where it issues from the plain Er- 
Ridie/i, narrowing Ijetween 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 (i\ tf P. pp. 40- 
42), on the contrary, with Ritter (xiv. 74(), 741), 
places Rejjhidim in Wady Feirnn, where the traces 
of building and cultivation still attest the impor- 
tance of this valley to all occupants of the de-sert. 
It narrows in one spot to 100 yards, 8howing 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 (Burckh.ardt, Arab. p. G02; 
see also Robinson, i. 117, 118). Its f.'rtility 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 
aVjove) 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 oidy 
spot XFeir(i7i) which was inhabited. Stanley (41) 
tliinks the word descriliing the ground, rendered 
the "hill" in Ex. xvii. 9, 10, and said adequately 
to descrilie that on which the church of Paran 
stood, affords an argument in favor of the Ftiran 
identity. H. H. 

* Upon tlie other hand, however, it may be 
urged with much force, that since ]Vady Feiran 
is full twelve hours' march from Jcbel Musn, 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 Bepbi- 
dim ((. e. at Wik/ij Feirnn), had he not passed by 
Wathj Feiran with its brook, garden, and ruins — th« 
most interesting spot in the peninsula — in order tt 
see Snrbfit ef-Charlem (ibid. p. 22). And Stanley ad 
mits the objection of bringing tlie Israelites througl 
the mos' striking scerery in the desert, that of Feiran 
without any event of importance to mark it. 


for Rephidini was distant from Sinai but one day's 
march (Kx. xix 2; Num. xxxiii. 15*, and tlie dis- 
tance Ironi W'adtj t'tlrnii to Jvbd Miita could not 
have been accomplished by so great a nnilt.tnde on 
foot, in a single njarch. Moreover, the want of water 
spoken of in Ex. xxii. 1, 2, seems to preclude the 
W'ltdy Ftirnn as the location of Rephidini; for the 
Wady has an almost perennial supply of water, 
whereas the deficiency referred to in the narrati\e 
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 Rephidini must be determined 
by that of Sinai; and the author of the above article, 
in his article on Sinai, seems to answer his own 
arguments for placing Rephidini in the Wiuhj 
Ftimn with Serbdl as the Sinai, and to accept 
in the main Dr. Robinson's identification of Sinai 
and Horeb, which requires that Rephidini be trans- 
ferred to \V(i(!y es-S/ieyk/i. The weight of topo- 
graphical evidence and of learned authority now 
favors this view. J. P. T. 

* REPROBATE (DS7?D : iiS6KLixos),incapa- 
ble of tndarlny trlid, or witen tested, found un- 
worthy (with special reference, primarily, to the 
assay of metals, see Jer. vi. 30), hence, in general, 
corrupt, wort/iluss. 

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, snpposaWy, without that proof of his 
apostleship which might be furnished by disciplinary 
chastisements, inflicted upon offenders through his 
instnmientality. Tiie same word, which is ordi- 
narily in tiie A. V. translated " reprobate," is ren- 
dered 1 Cor. ix. 27, " a castaway,'^ and Heb. vi. 8, 
" rejected:' 1). S. T. 

RE'SEN (Ip:^: Aarrij; [Alex.] Aaae/x: He- 
sen) is mentioned only in Uen. 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 inclined to identify it with the 
Rhesina or Rhessena of the Byzantine authors 
(Amm. INIarc. xxiii. 5; Procop. B<dL Pers. ii. 19; 
Steph. Byz. sub voce 'Peaiva), and of Ptolemy 
{Geogrtq^h. v. 18), which was near the true source 
of the western Khabour, and which is most prob- 
alily the modern Jins-el-nin. (See ^yiner■s lierd- 
wOrterbuch, sub voce "Resen.") There are no 
grounds, however, for this identification, exce|)t the 
similarity of name (which similarity is perhaps fal- 
lacious, since the LXX. evidently read "JDT for 

'(Dn), while it is a fatal objection to the theory 
that ResDena or Resina was not in Assyria at all, 
but in Western Mesopotamia, 200 miles to the west 
pf both the cities between wliich it is said to have 
lain. A fiir more probable conjecture was that of 
Hochart {Geogrnph. Sacr. iv. 23), who found 
Resen in the Larissa of Xenophon {Amib. iii. 4, 
§ 7), which is most certainly the modern Niinrud. 
Resen, or Dasen — whichever may be the true 
form of the word — must assuredly have been in 
illis neighhoriiood. As, bowevei, the Nimrud 
ruins seem really to represent ('.\l.\h while those 
opposite Mosul are the remains of Nineveh, we 
^just look fill' li'sen in the tri'.ct Iving between these 


two sites. Assyrian remains of some considerable 
extent are found in this situation, near the moderc 
village of Sebnniyeh, 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 Selamiyth, 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 {Kitvh- 
Slierohdi) was called Calah, and Nimrud Resen; 
but that, when the seat of empire was removed 
northwards from the former place to the latter, tlip 
name Calah was transferred to the new capital. In 
stances of such transfers of name are not uiifre- 

The later .Jews appear to have identified Resen 
with the KUt/i-SherijIidt ruins. At least the Tar- 
gums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem exiilain Resen 

by Tel-Assar (""Dbn or "IDSbn), " 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- 
phabetic compositions. [Poetry, Hkbkew ; 
Writing.] H. 

RE'SHEPH (Pltrn: 2apc(«; Alex. Pa(r€<J,: 
Resepli ). A son of Ephraini and brother of Rephah 
(1 Chr. vii. 25). 

* RESURRECTION. The Scripture doc- 
ti'ines of the i-esurrection and of the future life are 
closely connected ; or, rather, as we shall see in the 
sequel, are practically identical. 

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

I. Resukhection in the Old Testajiext. 

1. The passage which presents itself first for con- 
sideration is Ex. iii. 6, the address of God to Mo- 
ses at the burning bush, s.aying, " I am the God of 
thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, 
and the God of Jacob." This text takes prece 
denne of all others, inasmuch as it is exjiressly ap- 
pealed to by our Lord (Matt. xxii. 31, 32; Mark 
xii. 2G; 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 li\ing. That 
tliey were still living is undoubtedly a truth of fact, 
and expresses, therefore, the truth of the relation of 
tiie 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 refei\'ed 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 reasoniiin;, especially when 
we consider that the verli of existence ("am ") u 
not exprusied in the Hebrew. But it is not a pivw 


»f mere reasoning. The recognition in the Divine 
mind of the then present relation to Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, as hving, is declared on Christ's 
authority; and the evidence of it contained in the 
Hebrew text was sufBcient for the minds to which 
that evidence was addressed. A deeper nisight 
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 
fijture, supramundane life, as familiar to Moses and 
the patriarchs; for, otherwise, how should we find 
here, as the Apostle to the Helirews 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, " 1 

pray Thee, let this child's soul (tt'?3, 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 hones, 2 K. xiii. 
21. — And these three last are illustrations also of 
the resurrection of the boi/y. 

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, Dent, xviii. 9-11; where 

we have expressly D'^n^n"7S tt''"P_~T, doresh 
el'/mmmclhim, a seeker of a miraculous response 
from the dead, — a necroinancer. See also Lev. 
six. 31 and xx. 6 ; where the Israelites are forbid- 
den to have recourse to the m^S, obolJi, "such 
as havo 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 0. 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 coimection : "And when they 
ghaU say unto you. Seek unto thevi that have fa- 
miliar spirits, the rT^I2S, and unto wizards that 
peep and that mutter; should not a people seek 
unto their God? for the Hving to the dead 

(C\n^n-bS)? 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 thr 


witch of Endor really called up the s] Jrit 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 iu the 
existence of the spirits they were supposed to evoke. 

8. The same belief is shown in the use of the 
word Rephaim (C'SD"}), sometimes translated 
"giants," and sometimes "the dead," but more 
properly meaning Manias, or, perhaps, " the dead 
of long ago:" see Isa. xiv. 9; Ps. Ixxxviii. 10; 
Prov. ii. 18, ix. 18, xxi. 10; 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^ 

(VlStt7, or Vstr), 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 gener(d, may often be a proper 
translation of <S7/t(')^,- 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 .lacob's at Shechem, was never con- 
founded with Sheul. However SheCl may be asso- 
ciiitul — and that naturally enough — with the 
place in which the I'ody is deposited and decays, 
the Hebrews evidently regarded it aa a place where 
the dead continued in a state of conscious existence. 
No mat'ter though they regarded the place as one 
of darkness and gloom ; and no matter though they 
regarded its inhabitants as shades ; — still tliey be- 
lieved that there was such a place, and that the 
souls of the departed still existed there: see Isa. 
xiv. 9, 10: "Hell (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 imquestionably expresses prexailing popular ideas. 
Jacob goes down to Sheol to his son mourning, 
Gen. xxxvii. 3.5. Abraham gofs to his fathers 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- 
piiny 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. [Hf:ll; Abkah.^m'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 Sheul. 

The vision of the \alley of the dry Ijones ' in 
Ezek. xxxvii., though it may be intended merely 
to symbolize tlie 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 i}either as absurd, 
nor as l)eyond the limits of Almighty power. It it 
e\en employed for the purpose of iUuslrating an- 
other grand idea, another wonderful fact. 

In xxvi. 19, the prophet says: "Thy dead 
men (Ileb. miithim) shall hve, together with mj 


lead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye 
rhat dwell in the dust: for thy dew is as the dew 
of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead " 

(2"'SDn). Ps. xvi. 8-11 : " My flesh also shall 
rest in hope; for thou wilt not leave my soul 
C'tt?D3) in hell (VlS^^b); neither wilt thou 
suffer 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 throuL;h 
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 lo 
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 
strengtli of my heart, and my portion forever." 
Job xiv. 13-15 : " Oh that thou wouldest hide me 
me in the grave (Shevl), 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. 
Thou shall cull, and I will answtr thee; thou shalt 
have a desire tn the work 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 Redeemer (7S3, 
(Joel, — 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 he 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 reioavder of them that diUgently 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. 
) ; — 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 
aise up," etc. Also, the prediction in Mai. iv. ^-: 
"I will send you Elijah the prophet," etc., with 
«hicli compare Luke ix. 7, 8, 19. It seo»~! 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, metetnpsychosis, ot 
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 
Ellas;" and in him the prophecy vtas properly 
fulfilled, — he was the " Elias which was \;r to 

14. There are in the Classical as well as in the 
Hebrew writers, indications of the recognition not 
only 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 {avairri}- 
(TovTai)- See also jEschylus, 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 
immortahty 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 e\ery work into judgment, with every secret 
thing, whether it lie good, or whether it be evil." 
So then the soul, or .spirit, neither perishes with 
the body, nor is alisorbed into the Deity. It con- 
tinues in conscious existence, a subject of reward 
or punishment. 

II. Resurrection in the New Testament. 

1. There are five 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 life; yet 
they imply, no less, continued existence after death ; 
tliey prefigure, or rather, they presuppose a final 

3. The doctrine of a final general resurrection 
was the prevailing doctrine of the .lews (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; an^ 
xxvi. 4-8. If, then, Christ and his Aposlle* 
Ijlainly and solemnly assert the same doctrine, w* 



we not at liberty to give their words a strained or 
metaphorical interpretation. We must suppose 
them to mean what they knew they would be 
understood to mean. This is especially clear in 
tlie case of St. Paul, who had himself been edu- 
cated a Pharisee. 

The Jews seem to have also believed in return- 
ing spirits: Acts xii. 13-15; Matt. siv. 20; 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," Kom. 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 
hold that his body rose a spiritual body, than that, 
rising a natural, corruptilile, mortal body, it was 
either gradually or suddenly chinKjed before or at 
bis ascension. (5.) He was the first thus raised to 
a spiritual, inmiortal life in the body. 1 Cor. xv. 

20, 23; for it is to be oliserved that, wliile the rocks 
were rent and thus the graves were opened at Ins 
'cj'ucijjxion, yet the bodies of the saints which 
slept did not arise and come out of their graves 
until aj'ter I/is resurrn-titm. 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 retuivinr/ 
spirits; their bodies rose and came out of tlieir 
tjravi'S — not out of " the grave," out of " Hades" 
or " Sliei'il" 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 avaffracris and 
eyepffLS, 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, 
!RIatt. 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, (fee, &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, 
iii. 11 (?); Col. iii. 1; Rom. vi. 4-14; &c. 

But here is to be noted, that, according to the 
ideas of tlie 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 
•%'ith the first, as a condition or a consequence; and 
uhat the third is merely metaphorical. 

6. The heathen or philosophic doctrine of im- 
jiortality is to be carefully dietinguisbed from the 
Christian doctrine of the resurrection. The ab- 
stract immortality of the human soul, its immor- 
xSity independent of any reunion with the body, 


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

Tlje popular view of the Greek mind was devel- 
oped in the ideas of Hades, Klysium, and Tarta- 
rus; and to this view may correspond also the pop- 
ular Helirew conception of Shevl; 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 Gosjiel 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, 
— is found in the wide-spread philosophical and 
popular notion of metemp^ycliosis. 1'he immor- 
tality which the heathen imagined and to which 
they aspired, even in l^lysium, was, for the most 
part, a sad and sorry immortal. ty, — 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 aliove accident 
and pain. But their notions of metempsychosis 
could have afforded them at this point but meagre 
consokition. Instead of Paradise it was only an 
indefinite Purgatory. 

But liow 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 hnrHan 
mind, its fond anticipations of a life to come, are 
fully confirmed and satisfied. Inmiortality 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 ench other. If the soul 
is immortal, the body w ill be raised ; ifthe 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 inmiortality 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 consciou.«- 
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 enjoynieni 


In a future state ? How do we know that the hu- 
man soul is not, in its very nature, 30 constituted 
as to need a bodily organization for the nomplete 
play and exercise of its powers in erary 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 philosojAical 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 life. On the one 
hand, the soul is not unconscious while separated 
from tlie 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 tints 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 fact 
that the resurrection of the body — the redemp- 
tion of the body — is constantly set forth as the 
highest and ultimate goal of Christian liope. As 
Christians, therefore, we should not prefer the ab- 
stract immortality 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 
estabhshed bj' incontrovertible 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 
immortality 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 (lend. 

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 
<ife must be evident beyond dispute. See particu- 
Uirly vv. 12-19, 29-32. 

8. The New Testament doctrine of imnuyi-tality 
18, then, its doctrine of the resurrection. And its 
doctrine of the resurrection we are now prepared 
to nhow 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 resurrection 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 tlie fifteenth chapter of his epistle to the 
Corintiiiaus, 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 tl e 
other hand the truth seems to be that St. Paul 
does not give us any special or pecidiarly 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 Christian doc- 
trine. And that the resurrection of which he speaks 
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 1 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 lie 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 Stoics; it must therefore have lieen a resurrec- 
tion of the body, for the immortality of the soul 
would have been no theme of mockery to any 
school of Greek philosophers. The innnortality of 
the soul, though, for want of sufficient evidence, it 
miglit not be believed, was never rejected as /«- 
credible ; but St. Paul's appeal is, " why should 
it seem a thing incredible with you that God 
should raise the dead ? " 

(2. ) IMoreover 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. Otlierwise, if it 
were merely the assumption of n 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 ? 
.4nd 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 tney found that he risen from the dead. 

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



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

It was sugi;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 pi'oposition 
may be verbally true and yet practically false. 
And, indeed, it can hardly be said to be even cer- 
balhy true; tor, 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 boi/y shall i)e 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 llie 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 itV W'IvaI 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 faitliful 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, sofiit body, which shall have 
nothing to do with the body which was laid in 
the tomb? " We shall all be changed," says the 
Apostle. lie certainly does not mean that we shall 
be changeliiH/s. He does not say that our bodies 
shall be exchanged for others, but " we sh.all be 
changed," i. e., our bodies shall undergo a change, 
a transformation whereby from natural they shall 
become spiritual l)odies, so that this very corrupt- 
ilile itself shall put on incorrupti m. 

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 
Bp'ritual l»dy? 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, /low a body must be constituted in 
order to be fitted for such a purpose, we do not 
know and cainiot tell. But that for anything we 
lo know or can urge to the contrary, there may be 
sucii a body — proper material body — without 
»ny contradiction or absurdity, .St. Paul labors to 
demonstrate by a multitude of illustrations sliow- 


ing the vast diversity that exists among the 
bodies with which we are actually acquainted 
(1 Cor. XV. 39-i4). Among all this variety of 
bodies, therefore, which Almighty power is able U 
constitute, there certaiidy may be, and the Apostle 
asserts that there certainly is, a spiritual Ijody. 

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 mii;lit 
1)6 of an aerial, ethereal, or gaseous nature. But all 
such speculations transcend the bounds of our 
knowledge, and of our necessity ; and are apt to 
end in something gross and grovelling, or subli- 
mated and meaningless. The term spiritunl, as 
already said, is here used by the Apostle to indi- 
cate, not how the resurrection body is ctmstituted, 
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 nntunil {\^vxik6s) means, in the original, an- 
imal or animated, psychical, eiismded, — 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 
vidiind is directly derived from that translated 
soui, 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 sou! and body, 
but of body, soul, and spirit. So viewed, the body 
is the material organization, the soul is tiie 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, fur they are foolislmess unto him, neither 
can he know them liecause they are spiritually dis- 
cerned " — where the term natural is, in the orig- 
inal, again \|/ux"c<{?, psycliic, i e. animtil, pertaining 
to the soul. There ai'e but two other cases in which 
the word is used in the New Testament, and in both 
it is translated se/isuid: James iii. 15, "earthly, 
sensu'd, devilish "; and Jude 19, ^'■sensual, having 
not the Spirit." Thus, therefore, as the natural, 
or sensual, or animal, or psychical body, or th« 


»onl-body, is a body, not constituted of soul-sub- 
stauce, but fitted for the use and habitation of 
the sensitive soul; so we concbide that the spirit- 
ual body is a body, not coastituted or composed i.>f 
spiritual substance — which would be a contradic- 
tion, — but a true and proper body, a material 
body, fitted for the use and eternal habitation of 
the immortal spirit. 

Tlie tliou£;ht is sometimes suggested, in one form 
or another, th<it these bodies of ours are vile and 
worthless, and do not deserve to be raised ; and, 
therefore, that the spiritual body will have notliinsf 
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 be re- 
stored; so far as it is an incumbrance it is to be 
changed. This mortal is to put on ininiortality. 
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." That the spiritual body is to 
be a modification of the natural body, being as- 
sumed or clutlied 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 
Dwn body, seems sufficiently evident from the A])os- 
lle'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 witli 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.) Tlie resurrection of i/ie body, of this same 
body, of this same body transformed into a new and 
spiritual body, 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- 
wai'ils they that are Christ's at his coming." Many 
men had died before Christ, men with immortal 
souls, yet none had been raised from the dead to 
immortal life before Him ; He is the first fruitfl, tlie 
first-born, the first-l)egotten from the dead. Nor 
is it said that any shall be raised after Him until 
his coming. Tlien the last truujpet 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 resin-rection 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 '! Aiid why does the Apostle 
represent tlie resurrection of which he treats as 
both future and simultaneous for " them that are 
Christ's at his coiiiiiiy" 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 dues he say that it shall take place at tlie 
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 Christ's; 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 ((// 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, lay virtue of their con- 
nection with Christ, who, by his righteousness, is 
the restorer of life, shall all men who are \itally 
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 tliat all, 
absolutely nil 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 .lews (the Phari- 
sees) of his time, — that " there shall be a resurrec- 
tion of the dead, both of the just and unjust" (Acta 
xxiv. 15). 

But it by no means follows that all will rise in 
the same glorious bodies, or be admitted to the 
same immortal blessedness. On the contrary, it 
was expressly predicted of old that "some shall 
awake to everlasting life, and some to shame and 
everlasting contempt ; " — not to annihil itian as an 
everlasting death opposed to the everlasting life, 
but to shame and everlastiny cinitempt, which must 
imply continued conscious existence. And our 
Lord Himself, having made the declaration : '■ the 
hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall 
hear the voice of the Sou of God, and they that 
hear shall live; " — which may refer, and probably 
does chiefly refer, to a 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 are in the graves 
shall hear his \oice, 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 " (lohn v. 2-5, 28, 2!)). 

Tlie future bodies of the wicked may, for aught 
ive 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. Paul 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 
tie, 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 speciid 
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. 2.'i, 21: " 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 d.ay." Our 
Lord himself seems to recognize tli s doctrine in 



his frequent use of the phrase, " I will raise him up 
at the last day," John n. 39, 40, 44, 54. The 
same doctrine is (iistinctly tauffht by St. Paul (1 
Thess. iv. 14-18). As to the date of the comin;^ 
of the Lord, of which he speaks, and that it will 
have a reference to the wicked as weW as to the 
'ust, see the first ten verses of the next chapter. 
See also the second epistle; particularly 2 Thess. 
i. 7-10. And for the date, see aijain 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 kaml, in an- 
other sense it was }ioi at hand, 2 Thess. ii. 2. That 
he did not presume that he himself should be alive 
and remain unto the comintj of the Lord, is plain 
from his solenui protestation (1 Cor. sv. 31) of his 
gtanding 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 tliat He whicli raised up tlie Lord .lesus 
shall raise up us also by .lesus, and si tail present us 
with you ; ■' note also the whole context in this 
and in the following chapter. Now this second 
epistle to the Coruithians 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. G-8). If the Apostle had felt 
that he had l)eeu 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 triumpliant confidence at the last, and 
expressed it without one word o.f 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 lie interpreted is a subject of 
doubt and dispute. It may be difficult to reconcile 
it with the othc statements of Scripture on the 
same suiject. But, at farthest, it would separate 
into only tico great portions or acts, that which is 
elsewhere regarded in one point of view. 

HI. 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 will be a general resurrection at the last day 
of the bodies of all mankind. 

(2. ) Tliat the body in which each man will he 
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 
spiritual body ; it will be at once the same and 

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


limbs, in functions; whether, e. ff., they will hiiTV 
the hair, beard, nails, etc.; how far they may 1)6 
subject to tile physical laws of material things with 
which we are conversant; whether they will hare 
the same senses as the natural bodies, or more or 
less; whether they will have fixed forms, or the 
power of assuming various forms; what will be 
their essential constitution, or how 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- 
ruptilile bodies ("flesh and blood"); the doctrine 
neither affirms nor denies. These are all matters 
of mere speculation. To the question, " How are 
the dead raised upV and with what bodies do they 
conieV" the Scriptures vouchsafe no further an- 
swer than "spiritual bodies," "like 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 alreaily stated. 

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

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

(2.) It is said to be impossible that the identical 
body should be raised, because that l^ody will have 
gone entirely out of existence, and in order fbr 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 Ijody, 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 camiot 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 
iiody, under any circumstances, and on any hy- 
pothesis, a sheer absurdity; for, in order that a 
liody may be restored, reconstructed, reorgmized, 
he expressly makes it necessary that it snould 
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 ia 
not dilapidated, or reconstruct it without Uiking 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 reorcjanizing 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 iht 


body might he restored if it were simply resolved 
Into dtist, yet, iiiasnuich as it is resolved into 
elementary principli'S, into oxj'Lteii and other gases, 
which become mixed and confounded ■\vitli tlie mass 
of £;ases of tlie same l\ind, or combined variously 
with gases of different kinds, it is impossible that 
the same portions of tliese gases should be 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 resolved are matter, 
true and proper matter. Tliis tliey certainly are 
unless our metaphysical analysis is prosecuted be- 
yond all our ciiemical tests. At all events, they 
are either matter or not matter. If they are not 
matter, then masses of matter have been anni- 
hilated. If they are true and proper matter, then, 
like all matter, they are, or consist of, material 
particles. And tlie definite, identical, material 
particles of a cubic inch of oxygen are no more 
annihilated or absolutely lost or confounded liy 
being mixed with another cubic inch, or with ten 
tiiousand cubic feet, of oxygen gas, than are tlie 
definite identical particles of a cubic inch of dust 
by being mixed with any quantity of homogeneous 
dust. It is certainly assuming more than is se//- 
eviileni to say that omniscience cannot identify 
them and trace them through their new combin.a- 
tions, and that omnipotence cannot segregate them 
and restore them to their former connections. It 
is not here contended that this could be done by 
any human power or merely natural process, bift 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 coinpos'itiim with another 
simple substance, that is plainly false even on nat- 
ural principles. Let us try a few instances. 

If a certain number of grains of pure copper be 
combined with their definite proportion of oxygen, 
and this oxyde of copjier be dissolved in nitric acid, 
we shall have the nitrate of copper, which may 
exist in a perfectly liquid form. But 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- 
comjwsed 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- 
wards decomposed, the original, identical oxygen 
may also be recovered. If, in these processes, some 
portion of the original, simple sulistances should 
escape from us, it would oidy show the imperfec- 
tion of our manipulations, Init would not in the 
elightest degree attect the applicability and force of 
the argument for the i)resent purposes. That is a 
iiere business of degrees. No principle is in- 
volved in the recovery of the whole, which is not 
livolved in the recovery of a part. If, then, with 
5ar limited, practical powers, we can recover a part, 
lurely it cannot be said to transcend the powers of 
»niii!potence to recover the whole. 

ho 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 ol 
calcium or phosphorus. Let some grains of wheat 
lie planted in that soil; and, l)y 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 from the seed. 

One case more: A takes certain crystals of 
arsenic, and, having pidverized them and comliined 
the metal with the proper proportion of oxygen, 
mingles the poison with B's food, who swallows it 
and dies. Some time after, by an analysis of the 
contents and coalings of B's 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 B, is not at all increased 
by the detection of this arsenic in B's stomach, for 
it is not the arsenic which A is alleged to have 
administered, but some other. 

If it be said that the arsenic as a mass is indeed 
the same, luit that the individual crystals are not 
" identical " with those originally pulverized, the 
answer is, that thus the specific point 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 7iew combinations. The whole ditticulty 
is carried back 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 reproduced crystals of arsenic are, 
each of them, identical, as a matter of tact, with 
some one of the original crystals. But can any 
one prove that, 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 supposition 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 lie 
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, arrani;ed 
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 
frcrtii their present mixture, and restored, each and 
all, to their original relative positions, and the 
whole to it? orighial form''' We freely admit that 
such a restdt cannot be sec7ired 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 wl ich he 
has created, and control its movements frou' begin- 



•Ing to end according to the counsels of his own 
will. We not only assert that such a result can 
be conceived to be acconiplislied by the exercise of 
vuriiculoiis 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 
e.xceptions to the recognized laws of nature, or 
perhaps we should rather say, higlier 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 " nnist be used in a sort of hyper-metaphysical 
sense in vphich it is not ap])licable to material, vis- 
ilile 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 
would follow that, if this particle of water be 
decom])osed into the two gaseous particles, tlie re- 
union of these same gaseous particles would not 
reproduce the "identical," oriiiinal particle of 
water, but a difl^erent one. And a fortim-i it 
would follow that an ounce of water Iieing decom- 
posed and the same elements reunited, or being 
converted into steam, and that 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 
difterent. Hence it would follow that, as all visi- 
ble material things are in a constant flux, the idea 
of identity would lie absolutely inapplicalile to any- 
thing in the physical universe, except, perhaps, to 
the elementary and unch-angeable 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 
oidy so, liut the very terms "ide)itica] with " are 
nonsensical: for, inasmuch .as, in every proposition 
which conveys any meaning, the predicate must be 
conceived, in some respect, di\erse 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 
ill mankind is .sometimes said to lie impossible, for 
vant of material wherewith to reconstruct them, 
.t has been gravely asserted that after a few gen- 
erations more shall have passed away, there will 
not Ije matter enough in the whole globe of the 
earth to reconstruct all the bodies of the dead. 

To this it is sufficient to say that, even if such 
a reconstruction as the objector jiresmnes were ne- 
cessary — whicli it is not — there is more than 
weight and mass enough of matter in the nimoa 
phere which upon the surface of the Brit- 
ish Islands, or of the States of New England, New 
York, and New .lersey (as will be fuund upon a 
riirid 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 shnidrl have existed upon 
the earth more than 2.00(1.000 of years from this 
lime; — and that, supjiosing three generations in 


I a century ail the way from Adam onwards, and ■ 
continuous population 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 cf 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 w« 
know of. 

Tliere 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 ichen 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 underrjoing change while we 
live without being thereby destroyed or losing their 
identity, so the "identical" body being raised, it 
ni.iy undergo an instantaneous change to an indefi- 
nite extent. It may, therefore, be instantly di- 
vested of any jiaitieles 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. 
^Ve 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 lie a jiractioal sinniltaneousness): and though 
a certain particle should have been common to 
every one, havino; passed through the whole series 
in six or eis^ht 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 rajiidity 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 saj' with that admission. 
(".) Neither of those suppositions is, like the cre- 
ation- of matter from nothing, absolutely incon- 
ceivalde to our minds, (h.) If theoljection alleged 
merely a high degree of apparent improbability 
instead of an absolute impossiliility, 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 he the actual, doctrine of l^crip- 
ttire 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 tee shall have no need of 

(6.) The objector has all along proceeded upon 
the assumption, that the resurrection of this iden- 
tical iiody necessarily involves, (1) that the liody 
raised must lie iilentical with the body as it existed 
and was constituted <it the vioment (f 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, com- 


Dinations, and relationships. We have above 1 
jiidertaken to refute the oljections, eveii on the 
idniis^ion of both those assumptions ; bat now we 
ieny them both. And we assert that in order to 
n resurrection of tiie body — of this identical body, 
in a true, proper, scriptural, and ''human" sense, — 
it is neither necessary, in the first place, that the 
liody raised should be identical with the precise 
body w/iich expired the Inst breath ; nor, in the 
second place, that it should be identicnl 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 aire of thirty years, in perfect health 
ani sjundness of body and mind. Before he dies, 
he may lose his arms 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 Ije 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 he 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 own Initil 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? 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. ;'« 
the very actof dyi/u/ a(/ai7i? 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 liody, it is 
not necessary that the body raised should be iden- 
tical with any former body whatever, in such a 
sense as that it must consi**^ jf precisely the same 
elementary particles, neither more or less, arranged 
in precisely the same positions, combinations, and 

Novf 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, 
♦hey are constantly in a process of change, so that 
the body wliich 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 
frame 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 recog- 
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 
ivakes is never "identical" with that which was 
lulled to slumber! i^urely such absurdities will 
not be maintained. We will suppose, therefore, the 
body which rises to ditter from the body whicli 
Sved before otdi/ to the same extent as tlie body 
A'hich wakes differs from the body which fell asleep; 
vmld there then be a resurrection of the body in 
lay proper sense? If so then our proposition is 



estaliUshed and the opposite assumption is over- 
thrown. And, besides, a principle is thus gained 
which reaches much farther than is liarely neces 
sary to o\erthrow that assumption; for, if a slight 
difference is consistent with such a practical and 
sul)stantial identity as is required for a proper res- 
urrection of the body, will any one tell us pre- 
cisely the limit of tliis 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 nuich we shall certainly maintain. 

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

A distinguished physiologist, .Tohannes Miiller, 
has given a well-known theory of the " vital i)rin- 
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 innnortal 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 prineipla 
is neither lost and annihilated on the one hand, 
nor on tlie other aide to keep up the functions of 
the animal system, but lies dormant in con- 
nection with so nuich 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 suljstance, and 
yet elude all possible chemical tests and sensilile 
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 ]iresent 
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 at'iy man's present body and the 
seminal principle fi'om 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 al)Ove not as a doctrine, not 
as a theory of the resurrection, but as a mere casual 
hypothesis — one among many possible hypotheses, 
'i'he 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 of the body, it is by ;dl 
means to be rejected. 

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

We have already said, the Christian dogma of 
the resurrection contains nothing definite on tliese 
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 shov^ n that the body raised 
would be the same as the present body, if it pog- 



Kssed the same matter and form as the present body 
possesses (I I any pei-iod wimtccer of its iiye. We 
now add tliat the resurrection of the same body 
ooes not require that the body raised should have 
all the matter or tlie precise form of the present 
body as it actually existed here at any jieriod of life. 
It would be a resurrection of the body, and of the 
same body, if all the bodies of the dead should be 
raised in the vigor and beauty of youth or early 
manhood; the infant being instantaneously de- 
veloped to such a stature, the aged restored to it, 
and all deformities and defects forthwith removed. 
And as to organs and members; doubtless whatever 
characteristics of our present bodies will contribute 
to the glory and beauty and purposes of the I'uture 
body of the Christian will be retained in it; and 
whatever characteristics would mar that glory or 
beauty or fruitiun, 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 sonie- 
thini; significantly corresponding to them, may re- 
main forever in his glorified body, as visible nie- 
n)entoes of his dying love, as marks of honor and 
gi'aee to excite all the reileemed and the holy to still 
liitcher strains of love and adoration and praise. 
Since we are to le conitbrted for our departed 
friends b_y the assurance that " them that sleep in 
Jesus God will brini; 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 lineaments of the present 
body. The beautiful plant that rises from the 
grain that has been sown and has died, difters 
widely in all its external form and aspect from the 
seed, yet by it we can as certainly distinguish its 
kind as by the seed itself. And this system of cor- 
respondences may reach nuich further than we have 
yet traced it. The spiritual libdy may have an 
mtensity and transparency of expression for the 
character and individuality of the soul, such as the 
brightest mortal face we ever Ijeheld, the clearest 
and most soul-expressive eye of mortal mould into 
whose depths \\e ever gazed, coidd not enable us 
to conceive. The)i, there may be means of com- 
municating thouirht _and feeling in the future 
world, as far transcending all the power of the 
most perfect humai. speech 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, deconii)osition, and dispersion, when it dies, 
as those to which the bodies of the ox and the 
horse are sulject. But what does this prove? Does 
it prove that therefore God will not reconstruct and 
reanimate the human body? Is it thereibre to be 
thought a thing incredible that God should raise 
the dead ? We can see no such force of proof in 
Jiose facts. A\'e are not aware that anybody has 
undertaken to bring positive evidence of a resur- 
rection of the body from chemistry or natural ])hil- 
3sophy : and we caimot conceive what disproof there 
« in the alisence of proof derivable from those 


But (it is insisted) after the minutest chemicaJ 
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 ne\er found any more signs of a 
tendency to a resurrection in the body of a dead 
man than in that of a dead dog. And what then ? 
Therefore there is and can l)e 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 
material things; as though we were not prying 
deeper and deei)er 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 tJnmgh ice could set distinctly around and (ibuce 
the poirer of Almiyhty Hod, which, with Us higher, 
and perchance forever inscrutalile laws, presides over 
and controls all the law.s and functions of nature. 
All positive evidence lor a resurrection of the body 
must be sought for in the teaching of Eevelation ; 
anil that evidence, be it more or less, is not in the 
slightest degree affected by this chemico-physical 
argument: it is lelt just as it was and where it 
was, entire and intact. 

IV. History of the Docthixe. 

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

The Chiliarchs and Gnostics, from the first, held 
extreme views, the former toiding to an unscrip- 
tural grossness of detail, and the latter to an equally 
unscriptural refining away of the substantial fact, 
.lustin Martyr, Irenfeus and TertuUian, inclining to 
the Chiliarchs, taught a double resurrection. These 
and Clemens Komanus, Athenagoras, Theophilus, 
and Minutius Felix, all believed in a proj^er resur- 
rection of the body. Origen spiritualized it. (See 
Teller, Fides doyin. de Resnr. C(n->iis, 2)ei' i priwa 
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 opjiosed them, Init more mod- 
erately. Chrysostom lielieved in the identity of 
the body raised and the j^resent body, but followed 
St. Paul's exposition. I'.pijjhanius and TheSphilus 
of Alexandria agreed with .lerome; but Theoijhilus 
ordained Synesius, who coidd not assent to " the 
prevailing notions." [Showing two things: (1) 
that certain views, namely, those of Jerome, were 
then the prevailing views, and (2) that to accept 
them was not considered (by Theophilus) essential.] 
Phithnus confessed the resurrection l/vjvs 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 Swedenborgians also do the same, 
holding that each soul, inunediately upon death, \» 
clothed with its s])iritual body. Many persons it. 
all the Protestant coniniunions have, in later years 
felt conipfllHil liv the |iresnn)ed ])hilosophical difli 
culties oi the case, to give ui) the doctrine of a 


piwper resurrection of the body, and have either 
remained silent, without any avowed or definite 
belief upon che sulject, or have openly sided witli 
the Socini.uis or the Swedenborgians. 

The creeds and the symbols and confessions of 
the Reformed Churches, however, have remained 
unchaui^ed. See, e. ;/. Article IV. of the Churcii 
of England, " On the Resurrection of Christ," 
which, speaking of Christ's ascension "with flesh, 
bones, and all things appertaining 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 liesurreclio cariiis. 

D. R. G. 

* For the literature of this sulject, one may 
consult the bibliographical appendix to W. K. 
Alger's Critlcdl Hlstoi-y of the Doctrine of a 
Future Life, Nos. 292!)-3l';52, and on the Resur- 
rection of Christ, Nos. 3133-3181. A. 

RE'U (-"ll?"! [friend]: 'Pa^aD m Gen.-, [Rom.] 
'Payav [but Vat. Alex. "Payav] in Chr. : Reu, [Ra- 
gau] ). Son of Releg, in the line of Abraham's ances- 
tors (Gen. xi. 18, 19, 20, 21 ; 1 Chr. i. 2.3). He lived 
two hundred and thirty-niiie years according to the 
genealogy in Genesis. Bunsen {Bibtltatrk) says 
Reu is Rolia, 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 Rha(/ce, a large town of Media, especially if 
the Greek equivalents of the two names be taken. 

* In 1 Chr. i. 2.3 the A. V. ed. 1611, follow- 
ing the Bishops' Bible and the Genevan Version, 
reads Rehu, representing the Airi by H, as in 
Bome other cases. A. 

REU'BEN (p^S") [see below]: 'Vou^Tif 
and 'Poi//3r)i/; -loseph. 'Povfir}\os- Pesh. Syr. 
Rubil, and so also in Arab. vers, of .Joshua: Ru- 
ben), Jacob's first-born child ((ien. xxix. 32), the 
Bon of Leah, apparently not born till an unusual 
interval had elapsed after the uiarriatre (31 ; -Josepii. 
Ant. i. 19, § 8). This is perhaps denoted by the 
name itself, whether we adopt the obvious signifi- 
oatiou of its present form — reu ben, i. e. " be 
bold ye, a son ! " (Gesen. Thes. p. 1247 b) — or (2) 
the explanation given in the text, which seems to 

imply that the original form was "'^S^S ""'IS"^, 
rail beoni/u " .lehovah hath seen my afflic/i(m," or 
(3) that of .losephus, who uniformly presents it 
as Roubel, and explains it {Ant. i. 19, § 8) as the 
" pity of God " — eKeov rod Qeov, as if from 

bS2 *'^S"I (Fiirst, Ilnndu.-b. ii. 344<().« The no- 
tices of the patriarch Reuben in the book of Gen. 
esis and the early Jewish traditional literature are 
uimsually frequent, and on the whole give a favor- 

o Redslob {Die Altlestamentl. Namen, 86) maintains 
that Reubel is the oriLjinal form of the name, which 
was corrupted into Reuben, as Bethel into B^itin, and 
Jezreel iuto 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 
under the name of Nebo had a famous sanctuarv in 
^e very territory of Reuben. In tliis case it wo'ild 
9e a parallel to the title, "people of Chemosh. ' vl,ich 
« bestowed on Moab. Tlieal'eration of t'ae obqodoiis 

REUBEN 2719 

aljle view of his disposition. To him, ai.d 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 kindl} 
artifice for delivering him (Gen. xxxvii. 22), his 
recollection of the minute details of the painful 
scene many years afterwards (xlii. 22), his otter to 
take the sole responsibility of the safety of the 
lirother wlio had succeeded to Joseph's place in the 
family (xlii. 37), all testify to a warm and (for those 
roui;h times) a kindly nature. Of the repulsive 
criine which mars his history, and which turned 
the blessing of his dyin;; 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 occurred (as in the Taryuni 
Pseiulojonalh(in), or else as the result of a sudden 
temiitation acting on a hot and vigorous nature (as 
in the Test'iments of Ike Twelve Patriarclis) — a 
parallel, in some of its circumstances, to the in- 
trigue of David with Bathsheba. Some severe 
temptation there must surely have been to imijel 
Reuben to an act which, regarded in its social rather 
Jian in its moral aspect, would be jieouliarly abhor- 
rent to a patriarchal society, and wliich is specially 
and repeatedly reprobated in the Law of Moses. 
The Rabbinical version of the occurrence (as given 
in Tiirg. Pseu'lojon.) is very characteristic, and 
well illustrates the difference between the spirit of 
early and of late Jewish history. '• Reul)en went 
and disordered the couch of Bilhah, his father'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, ' Lo! an unworthy 
person shall proceed from me, as Ishmael 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.' " 
Reuljen's anxiety to save .loseph is represented as 
arising from a desire to conciliate Jacob, and his 
alisence while .loseph was sold from his sitting 
alone on the mountains in penitent fasting. 

These traits, slight as they are, are those of an 
ardent, impetuous, unlialanced, 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 tlie 
rajjid 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. xlvl. 9; 1 Chr. v. 3). 
From them sprang the chief families of the trilx" 
(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 oonspiraoy against Moses (Num. 

syllable in Reu'if/ would, on this theory, find a paral. 
lei in the ^l^nhbaal and Eshftaa/ of Saul's family, whq 
became Mephjiojj/ifM and lahhoslietk. 

I> Such appears to be a more accurate rendering '>r 
the word which in the .\. V. jg rendered " unstable'- 
(Gesen. Pent, Sa?n. p. 33). 

c According to the ancient tradition preserved by 
Demetrius (in Euseb. Prfrp Ec. ix. 21), Heuben WW 
■13 years old at the time cf th*; migratiou. 



ivi. 1, xxvi. 8-1]). The census at Mount Sinai 
(Num. i. -20, 21, ii. 11) shows that at the Kxodus 
fche numbers of the tribe were 46,500 men abo\e 
twenty years of age, and fit for active warlilve ser- 
vice. In point of numerical strength. Keuben was 
then sixtli on the list, (jatl, with 45.(J.50 men, lieing 
next below. On tlie borders of Canaan, after the 
plague which punished the idolatry of Baal-l'eor. tlie 
numbers had fallen slightly, and were 4-3,730; Gad 
was 40,500; and the position of the two in the list 
is lower than before, Ephraim and Simeon being the 
only two smaller tribes (Num. xxvi. 7, ifcc). 

During the journey through the wilderness the 
position of Keubeu was on the south side of the 
Tal^rnacle. The " camp " which went under his 
name was formed of his own tribe, that of Simeon " 
(Leah's second son), and Gad (son of Zilpali, Leah's 
slave). The standard of the camp was a deer'' 
with the inscription. " Hear, oh Israeli the Lord 
thy God is one Lord! " and its place in the march 
was second {Tufyuni Pstudnjun. Num. ii. lO-lG). 

The Keubenites, like their relatives and neigh- 
bors on the journey, the (iadites, had maintained I 
through the nwrih to Canaan the ancient calling 
of their tbrefathers. The patriarchs were "feeding 
their flocks " at Shechem when Joseph was sold 
into Kgypt. It was as men whose " trade had 
been about cattle from their youth " that they 
were presented to Pharaoh ((jen. 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, ifec). 15ut it would appear that the tribes 
wlio were destined to settle in the confined territory 
between the Mediterranean and the .lordan had, 
diiring the journey througli 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 tte wide 
pastures of the wilderness. Thus the cattle had 
come into the hands of Iteuben, 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 tr bes just 
named shoidd prefer a request to their leader to be 
allowed to remain in a place so perfectly suited to 
their requirements. The part selected by Keuben 
had at that date the special name of "the Mishor," 
with reference possiijly to its evenness (.Stanley, 
iS. {/• P. App. § 6). Under its modern name of 
the Bdkii it is still esteemed beyond all others by 
the Arab sheep-masters. It is well watered, co\ered 
with smooth short turf, and losing itself gradually 
in those iLimitable 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 
tonnectiou in the interchange of the names in Jud. 
nil. 1 (Vulg.) and ix. 2. 

b It ig said that this was originally an ox. but 
tb%nged by Mnses, lest it should recall the sin of the 
^Idea calf. 

« A few versioug have been bold enough to render 


between the " coast of Jordan " and " the sea." 
15ut for the pusillanimity of the greater numlier 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 a, 

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 gi\en them (Num. xxxii. 7). It is only on 
their undertaking to fulfill their part in tiie conquest 
of the western country, the land of Canaan proper, 
and thus satisfying him that their proposal was 
srounded in no selfish desire to escape a full share 
of the difBculties of the conquest, that Moses will 
consent to their proposal. 

The "blessing" of Eeuben by the departing 
Lawgiver [Deut. xxxiii. 0] is a passage which has 
se\erely exercised translators and commentators. 
.Strictly translated as they stand in the received 
Hebrew text, the words are as follows : ^ — 

" bet Reuben live and not die, 
And let his men be a number " (i. e. few). 

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

" And let his men d be many in number." 
This has the disadvantage that ^Sp^ is never 
employed elsewhere for a large number, but always 
for a small one (e. y. 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 liy the ancient 
Syriac ^'ersion (Peshito) and the translations of 
.funius and Tremellius, and Schott and Winzer. 
It also has the important support of Gesenius 
{ThifA. p. 908 n, and Pmt. Sam. p. 44). 

3. A third and verj' ingenious interpretation is 
that adopted by the Veneto-Greek Version, and also 
by l\lichaelis [Bihel J'iir Un<jelehrten, Text), which 

assumes that the vowel-points of the word VHp, 

" his men,'" are altered to TTI^, " 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 

the Hebrew as it stands. Thus the Vulgate, Luther 
De Wette, and Bunsen. 

f' The Alex. LXX. adds the name of Pinieon (" and 
let Symeon be many in number''): but this, though 
approved of by Mlohaelis (In the notes to the passage 
in tii.s Bihel fiir Uiii;rlehrtrn ), on the grnund that then 
is no reii.eon for omitfing Simeon, is not supported bj 
any Codex or any other Version. 


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

Both in this and the earlier l)lessing of Jacob, 
Reuben retains his place at the head of the family, 
and it must Tiot be overloolved that the tribe, to- 
i^ether witli the two who associated tliennelves 
witli it, actually received its inheritance lefore 
either .ludah or Kphraim, to whom the birthright 
which Keuben 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 fiub- 
stantially between the eastern and western tribes. 
The first act of the former after the completion of 
the conquest, and after they had taicen part in 
the solemn ceremonial in the valley between Ebal 
and Gerizim, shows liow wide a gap already ex- 
isted between their ideas and those of the western 

The pile of stones which they erected on the 
western banl< of the Jordan to mark their boun- 
dary — -to testify to after ages that though sep- 
arated by tlie rushing river from their brethren and 
tlie country in which Jeliovah had fixed the place 
wiiere He would lie worshipped, they had still a 
right to return to it for his worsliip — was erected 
in accoidance with the unalterable habits of Be- 
douin tribes l)Oth 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 tlie 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 shown by the 
fact, that notwithstanding the disclaimer of the 
2| tribes, and notwithstanding that disclaimer hav- 
ing proved satisfactory even to Phinehas, the autlior 
of Joshua xxii. retains the name nhbidch for the 
pile, a word which involves the idea of sacrifice — 
i. e. of sliiufjhter (see Gesenius, Thes. p. 402) — in- 
stead of applying to it the term c/al, as is done in the 
case (Gen. xxxi. 40) of the precisely similar "heap 
of witness." * Another Keubenite erection, which 
for long kept up the memory of the presence of the 
tribe on the west of Jordan, was the stone of liohan 
ben-Reuben which formed a landmark on the boun- 
dary between Judah and Benjamin, (.losh. xv. 
6.) This was a single stoiie {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 
Ueuben is handed down to us. In the dire ex- 



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

" Mnv Reuben live and not die, 
Thousli Ills men be few." 

In excellent evasion of the difficulty, provided it be 
Omissible as a translation. 
<> The "altar'' is actually called Ed, or "witness" 

tremity of their brethren in the north uiidei 
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 th« 
trumpet and the turmoil of battle. His individ- 
uality fades more rapidly than Gad's. The elever 
valiant Gadites who swam the .lordan at its highest 
to join the son of Jesse in his trouble (1 Chr. xii. 
8-15), Barzillai, Elijah the (iileadite, 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 distinctei form 
than as a member of the community (if com- 
munity it can be called) of "the Reubenites, the Ga- 
dites, ajid the half-tribe of Manasseh " (1 Chr. xii. 
37). The very towns of his inheritance — Hesh 
bon, Aroer, Kirjathaim, Dibon, Baal-nieon, Sibmah 
Jazer, — are familiar to us as Moabite, and not aa 
Israelite towns. The city-life so characteristic of 
Aloabite civilization had no hold on the Reubenites. 
They are most in tlieir element when engaged in 
continual 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 spreadint;!; over the 
vast wilderness whicU extends from Jordan to the 
Euphrates (ver. 9), and every day receding further 
and further from any community 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 relin(pushed 
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 tliem, while it records 
this fact, records also as its natural consequence 
that the Reubenites and (iadites, and the half-tribe 
of Manasseh, were carried off by Pul and Tiglath- 
Pileser, and placed in the districts on and about 
the river Klialmr in the upper part of Mesopo- 
tamia — "in Halah, and Halior, and Hara, and 
the river Gozan " (1 Chr. v. 20). G. 

* REU'BENITES 03?^S"} : commonly 
'Pou^riv, but Josh. xxii. 1, ol viol 'Pov^rji', Alex 
01 'Pov&r]viraL\ 1 Chr. xxvi. 32, 'Poui8rji/i [Vat 
-vei] : Ruben, RubenikB), and once sing., REU'- 
BENITE (1 Chr. xi. 42; EXX. omit; Vulg. 
Rubenili'S). Descendants of Rkuisen (Num. xxvi. 
7; Deut. iii. 12, 10, iv. 43, xxix. 8; .losh. i. 12, 
xii. 6, xiii. 8, xxii. 1; 2 K. x. 33; 1 Chr. v. 0, 20, 
xi. 42, xii. 37, xxvi. 32, xxvii. 10). A. 

REU'EL (bs^27~l [friend of 6W] : 'Pa 
yov7]\'- Raliuel, Rir/uel). The name of several 
persons mentioned in the Bible. 

1. One of the sons of Esau, by bis wife Bashe 

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

c The word used here, peles:, seems to i~efer to arti- 
ficial streams or ditches for irrigation. [River.] 

'' This is Ewald's rendering (Z>i'cA(«r des A. B. i. 130), 
adopted by Bunsen, of the passaije rendered in Uu 
A. V. " bleating of the flocks " 



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

2. One of the names of Moses' father-ni-Iaw 
(Ex. ii. 18); the same which, through adherence 
to the LXX. form, is given in another passage of 
the A. V. Kaguel. Moses' father-in-law was a 
Midianite, 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 thqt the name of lieuel may be a token 
of his connection with the Isbmaelite tribe of that 
ftame. There is, however, nothing to confii'm this 

3. Lather 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 retahied in this instance also by 
the Vulgate {Duel). 

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

REU'MAH (n^^SI [raiseil, high] : 'Peifia; 
Alex. Peripa: lioiwi). The concubine of Nahor, 
Abraham's brother (Gen. xxii. 24). 

Kv^is ''Iwa.vvov- Apiicaljipsis Benti Jonwds Apos- 
toli). The following suVijectis in connection with 
this hook seem to ha\e the chief claim for a place 
in this article : — 

A. Canonical Autiiokity and Autiioh- 


B. TiJiE AND Place of Wiuting. 

C. Language. 

D. Contents and Stiiuctuhe. 

E. History of Interphetation. 

A. Canonical Authority and Autiior- 
SHip. — The question as to the canonical autiiority 
of the Revelation resolves itself into » question of 
authorship. If it can Ve proved that a book, claim- 
ing so distinctly as this does the authority of divine 
inspiration, was actually written by St. John, then 
no doul)t will he 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 I!evelati<j^i ? 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 ( VorreiJe (mf die Off'tnbnriing, 
1522 and 1534), and widely diffused through his 
influence. Liicke {Einli^itunfj, p. 802), the most 
learned and diligent of modern critics of the Reve- 
lation, agrees with a majority of the eminent 
scholars 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 descri])tion of himself in the 
1st and 22d chapters is certainly equivalent to an 
Rssertion that he is the A|iostle. (a.) He names 
liniself simply John, witliout prefix or addition — 
a name which at tluit period, and in Asia, nnist 
kave been taken liy every Christian as the designa- 
IVd \n the first instance of the great Apostle who 


dwelt at Ephesus. Doubtless there were othei 
•lohns among the Christians at that time, but onlj 
arrogance or an intention to deceive could account 
for the assinnption of this simple style by any othei 
writer. He is also described as (6) 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 {d) in Pat- 
mos for the word of God and the testimony of 
Jesus Christ: it may be easy to suppose that otlier 
Christians of the same name were banished thitber, 
but the Apostle is the only John who 'is disthictly 
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 connnunication 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 {y) 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 witli .St. 
.lohn's other writings and lile, nuist 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 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, Crednei', and others, from the 
fact that a promise of the future blessedness of the 
Apostles is im]>lied in xviii. 20 and xxi. 14; as if 
it were inconsistent with the true n.odesty 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 hin)self personally. 
Rather tiiose passages may Ije taken as instances of 
the writer quietly accepting as his just due suci 
honorable mention as belongs to all the Apostolic 
company. Unless we are prepared to gi\e 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 
de.scription 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 stanijied 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 l)Ook. Generally, tlie instinct of single- 
minded, patient, faithful students has led them to 
discern a connection between the lievelation and 
St. John, and to recognize not merely the same 
Spirit as the source of this and other books of Holj 
Scripture, but also the same peculiarly -formed 
huni.'in instrument employed both in jirodueing 
this book and the fourth Gospel, and in speaking 
the characteristic words and performing the char- 
I acteristic actions recorded of S: I. John. Phis evi- 



dence is set forth at great length, and with much 
force and eloquence, by J. P. Lange, in liis Kssaj' 
on the Connection between the Individuality of the 
Apostle Jolni and that of tlie Apocalypse, 1838 
{Vermiscld. Schi-iJ'len, ii. 173-231). After in- 
vestigating the peculiar features of the Apostle's 
character and position, and (in reply to Liicke) the 
personal traits shown by the writer of the Revela- 
tion, he concludes that the !)Ook is a mysterious 
but genuine effusion of prophecy under the New 
Testament, imbued with the spirit of the Gospel, 
the product of a spiritual gift so peculiar, so great 
and noble that it can be ascribed to the Apostle 
.'•jhn alone. The Revelation 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 singulai'ly 
distinct and numerous, and there is very little to 
weigh against them, {a.) Justin Martyr, cir. 150 
A. D., says: "A man among us whose name was 
John, one of thi^ Apostles of Christ, in a revelation 
which was made to him, prophesied that the be- 
lievers in our Christ shall live a tliousand years in 
Jerusalem" {Tr/j/>h. § 81, p. 179, ed. Ben.), {b ) 
The author of the iluratorian 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 Liicke candidly in- 
terpret it, his predecessor in the office of Apostle, 
(c.) Melito of Sardes, cir. 170 A. D., wrote a treatise 
on the Revelation of John. F.usebius (//. is', iv. 
26) mentions this among the books of Melito which 
bad come to his knowledge; and, as he carefully 
records objections against the Apostle's authorship, 
it may be fairly presumed, notwithstanding the 
doubts of Ivleuker and Liicke (p. 51-1), that luise- 
bius found no doubt us to St. John's authorship in 
the liook 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 (Kuseb. //. A', iv. 2-t). (e.) Ireuieus, 
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 the Revelation 
as the same who was leaning on Jesus' bosom at 
supper, and asked Him who should betray Him. 
The testimony of Ireuffius as to the authorsliip 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 (6G6) of the number 
of tlie Beast, he cites in support 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 
Irenseus'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. .tohn as the writer of the baok. 
Liicke (p. 574) suggests that this view was possilily 
groundless, because it was entertained before the 
learned fathers of .\lexandria had set tlie example 
of historical criticism; but his suggestion scarcely 
weakens the force of the fact that such was the 
Relief of Asia, and it appears a strange suggestion 
W'nen we rememlier that the critical discernment 
if the Ale.Kandrians, to whom he refers, led them 
lO coincide with Irenaus in his view. (/".) Apol- 
A)niu8 (cir. 200) of Lphesus('?;, in controversy with 

the ]Montanists of Phrygia, quoted passages out of 
the Revelation of John, and narrated a miraclt 
wrought by John at Ephesus (Euseb. H. E. v. 18). 
((/.) Clement of Alexandria (cir. 200) quotes the 
book as the Revelation of John {Sti'omntn, vi. 13, 
p. 667), and as the work of an Apostle {Pied. ii. 
12, p. 207). (h.) Tertullian (a. d. 207), in at 
least one place, quotes by name " the Apostle John 
in the Apocalypse " {Adv. Marcion. 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. Jihn 
{De AnlkhritU), § 36, col. 750, ed. Migne). {j.) 
Origen (cir. 233), in his Commentary on St. John, 
quoted by Eusebius (//. 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 Frokf/oinena 
[N. T., vol. iv. pt. ii.). It may suffice here to say 
tliat they include the names of Victorinus, Heth- 
odius, Ephrem Syrus, Epiphanius, Basil. Hilary, 
Athanasius, Gregory [of Nyssa], Didymus, Am- 
brose, Augustine, and Jerome. 

All the Ibregoing writers, testifying that the book 
came from an Apostle, 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 {(I.) Papias, who is described by 
Irenaius 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, JiKliq. Sacr. 
i. 15; Cramer's CiUenn, 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 
ditfiirent parts. {/j.) In the Epistle from the 
Churches of Lyons and Vienne, a. d. 177, inserted 
in Eusebius, //. E. v. 1-3, several passages (c. tj. i. 
5, xiv. 4, xxii. 11) are quotetl or referred to in the 
same way as passages of books wliose canonical 
authority is unquestioned, (c.) Cyprian (^vyj. 10, 
12, 14, 10, 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 inforuied by Suidas that he received it as canon- 
ical. Although omitted (perhaps as not adapted 
for public reading in church) from the list af 
canonical books in the Council of Laodicea, it was 
admitted into the list of the Third Council of 
Carthage, A. d. 3,)7. 

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

Jlarcion, who regarded all the Apostles except 
St. Paul as corrupters of the truth, rejected the 
Apocalypse and all other books yf the N. T. which 
were not written by St. Paul. The Alogi, an 
oliscure sect, circa 180 A. D., in their zeal against 
Montanism, denied the existence of spiritual gifts 
in the church, and rejected the Revelation, saying 
it was the work, not of John, but of Cerinthua 
(Epiphanius, Ado. Iher. Ii.). The Roman presby- 
ter Caius (circa 196 A. D.), who also wrote against 
Montanism, is quoted by Eusebius (//. E. iii. 28) 



fts ascribing certain Revelations to Cerinthus : but it 
M doubted (see Kouth, Ih-L Sacr. ii. 138) wbetber 
the Revelation of St. John is the booli to which 
Caius refers. But the test.niony which is consid- 
ered the most important of all in ancient times 
against the Revelation is contained in a fragment 
of Dionjsius of Alexandria, circa 240 a. d., the 
most influential and perlin|is the ablest bisliop in 
that age. The passage, tai<fn from a booic Un the 
Pniiiusts, written in reply to Nepos, a learned 
Judaizing Chiliast, is quoted by Eusebius (//. E. 
vii. 25). The principal points in it are these: 
Dionysius testifies that some writers before him 
altogether repudiated the Re\elation as a forgery 
of Cerinthus; many brethren, however, prized it 
very highly, and Uionysius 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 Hernianimon (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 nmst 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 A])ocalypse actually 
saw what he describes, and was endowed with the 
divine gilts 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 doulit 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 attributins it, as he desired to at- 
trilnite 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 hooks wliich are absent from tlie 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 
rsmarkaljly 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 Ephesiau pres- 
byter), if any one is unwilling to believe that it 
WHS seen by the Apostle.'' Jerome states {Ep. ml 
Danhinum, etc.) that the Greek churches felt, with 

respect to the Revelation, a similar doubt to tb<it 
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 JMopsuestia, 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. Ti.ME AND Place of AVritikg. — The date 
of the Re\'elation 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 {Adc. Iher. v. 30, § 3): "It 
{i. e. the Revelation) was seen no very long time 
ago, but almost in our own generation, at the close 
of Domitian's reign." Eusebius also records as a 
tradition which he does not question, that in the 
persecution under Domitian, John the Apostle and 
f^vangelist, being yet alive, was banished to the 
island Patmos for his testimony of the divine vvord. 
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 oljscure and later au- 
thorities say that John was banished imder Nero. 

Unsupported by any historical ev'idence, 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- 
Uarities 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, that 
Jerusalem was in a prosperous condition, and tliat 
the predictions of its fall had not been fulfilled 
when those verses were written. A more weighty 
argument in favor of an ea.vly 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 ids throne: and these 
interpreters venture to su!,'gest that the writer of 
the Revelation shared and meant to express the 
al)surd popular delusion. Even the able and lear^ied 
Reuss {Theol. Chrei. i. 443), by way of supporting 
this interpretation, advances his untenable .claim 
to the first discovery of the name of Nero Cajsar 
in the number of the beast, GOG. 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 
Hengstenberg at the end of his Commentary on 
ch. xiii., and by Elliott, IIviw Apoc. iv. 547. 

a * Thj.' cannot properly be suid of Cyril of Joru- canonical {Catfck. iv. 33, al. 22). See Westcctt, Canot 
Bieiu H. i. D. 350), who clearly repudiates it as not , cfthe N. T. pp. 398, 491 f. A. 



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

C. Laxgu.vge. — 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 {Einhlt. 4-t]) has also collected in- 
terniil evidence to show that the original is the 
Greek of a .Jewish Christian. 

Liicke has also (pp. 448— i64) examined in 
minute detail, after the preceding labors of Uonker- 
Curtius, Vogel, Winer, Kwald, KolthoflT, and Hit- 
zig, the peculiarities of language which obviously 
distinguish the Kevelation from every other book of 
the New Testament. And in sulisequent sections 
(pp. G80-747) he urges with great force, the differ- 
ence between the Kevelation on one side and the 
fourth Gospel and First I'lpistle on the other, in 
respect of their style and composition and the 
mental character and attainments of the writer of 
each. Hengstenberg, in a dissertation appended to 
his Commentary, maintains that they are by one 
writer. That the anomalies and peculiarities of 
the Revelation have been greatly exafjgerated by 
Eome critics, is sutKciently shown by Hitzig's 
plausible and insienious. tiiough 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 Ke\'elation 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- 
posed 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 facts, 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 writer. John begins (i. 4) with a 
salutation of the Seven Churches of Asia. This, 
coming before the ainiouneement that he was in 
tlie 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 
^re Indlt; the Pei'son of Christ, the redemption 
wrought by Him, his second coming to judge man- 
kind, the painful hoi)eful discipline of Christians 
in the midst of this present world: thoughts wliicli 
may well be supposed to have ueeii uppermost in 
the mind of the persecuted and exiled Apostle even 
before the iJivine Inspiration came on him. 

". The first vision (i. 7-iii. 22) shows the Son 
if Man with his injunction, or Epistles to the 
Seven Churches. \\ liile the Apostle is pondering 
tose 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 .lohn, 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 bj' 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 in 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 thw 
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 144,0U0, the 
children of Israel, servants of God, are sealed, and 
an imiumerable 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 hea\en 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 afHicts 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. I'.ach of the last two, like the longer 
one which follows, has the appearance of a distinct 
jjrophecy, reaching from the prophet's time to the 
end of the world. The second half of the Keveliv 
tion (xii.-xxii. ) comprises a series of visions which 
are comiected by various links. It may be de- 
scrilied 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 



»nd the harlot) upon the Church, and their final 
destruction. It appears to begin with a reference 
to events anterior, not only to those which are pre- 
dicted in tlie preceding chapter, but also to the 
time in which it was written. It seems hard to 
interpret the birth of the 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 
mother flees into the wilderness for 1260 days. 
The persecution of the wonjan 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 east out upon the earth. 

St. .lohn (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. Ail the world wonder at 
and worship him, and he attacks the saints and 
prevails. He is followed by another two-horned 
iieast 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 Jlount Zioii learning the song of praise 
of the heaveidy host. Three angels tly 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 har\est reaped by angels. 

St. .lohn (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. .Jolni 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 tlie 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 \\'ord 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 miloosed, gathers a host against 
the camp of the saints, but is overcome by fire 
from heaven, and is cast into the burning lake with 
♦.he beast and false prophet. St. .lohn then wit- 
iie.sses the process of the final judgment, and sees 
and describes the new heaven and the new earth, 
iud the new .Jerusalem, with its people and their 
aray of life. 

In tiie last sixteen verses (xxii. 6-21 ) the angel 
•olenndy asseverates the truthfulness and impor- 
Unce of the foregoing sayings, pronounces a bless- 

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

E. Interpretation. — A short account of the 
different directions in which attempts have been 
made to interpret the Kevelation. is all that can be 
given in this place. The special blessing promised 
to the reader of this book (i. 3), the assistance to 
common Christian experience aftbrded hy its pre- 
cepts and by some of its visions, the striking im- 
agery of others, the tempting 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 sulject 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 connneu- 
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 
beginnmg a connection between Home and Anti- 
christ was universally allowed, and parts of the 
Kevelation Were regarded as the filling-up of the 
great outline sketched by Daniel and St. Paul. 

The only extant systematic intei-pretations in 
this period are the interpolated Commentary on 
the Kevelation by the martyr Victorinus, circ. 270 
A. D. {Bihliothec-i Pnfrum Maxima, iii. 414, and 
Migne's Patinlogia Lnlina, v. 318; the two edi- 
tions should be compared), and the disputed Trea- 
tise on Antichrist by Hippolytus (Jligne's Palro- 
lof/iii Grac'i. x. 720). But the prevalent views of 
that age are to be gathered also irom a passage in 
Justin Martyr {Trypho, 80, 81), from the later 
books, especially the fifth, of Iren»us, and from 
various scattered passages in Tertullian, Origen, 
and Methodius. The general anticipation of the 
last days of the world in Lactantius, vii. 14-25, 
has little direct reference to the Kevelation. 

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 u]ion the tem- 
poral supremacy of Christianity as a fulfillment of 
the promised reign of Christ on earth. The Ko- 
man empire become Christian was regarded no 
longer as the olject of prophetic denunciation, but 
as the scene of a millennial development. This view, 
however, was soon met bv the figurative interpre- 
tation of the millennium as the reign of Christ ic 



the hearts of all true believers. As the barbarous 
and heretical invaders of the felling empire ap- 
peared, they were regarded by the suffering Chris- 
tians as fulfilling the svoes 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 Connnentary of the Abbot .loachim 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 commentaries belonging to this period 
are that which is ascribed to Tichonius, circ. 391) 
A. D., printed in the works of St. Augustine; Pri- 
masius, of Adrumetum in Africa, A. i). 5.50, in 
Migne's Pntrologia Lnlina, Ixviii. 1406; Andreas 
of Crete, ch'c. 650 a. d., Arethas of Cappadocia 
and Qscumenius of Thessaly in the 10th century, 
whose commentaries were pnblisiied together in 
Cramer's C"ieiin, Oxon., 1840; the hxplinafio 
Apoc. in the works of Bede, a. d. 735 ; the L'xpo- 
sitio of Berengaud, printed in the works of Am- 
brose; the Commentary of Hay mo, a. d. 853, first 
pubUshed at Cologne in 1531; a short Treatise on 
the .Seals by Anselm. bishop of Havilberg, a. d. 
1145, printed in D'Ach^ry's Spicilei/ium, i. 161; 
the h'x/iosl io of Abliot .loacliim of Calabria, A. D. 
1200, printed at Venice in 1527. 

Ill tlie dawn of the Reformation, the views to 
which tlie reputation of Abbot .loachim gave cur- 
rency, were taken up by the harlnngers of the im- 
pending change, as by Wickliffe and others; and 
they Ijecame the foundation of that great historical 
school of interpretation, which up to this time 
seems tlie 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. 

". 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 supporters 
of this most interesting interpretation are Mede, 
Sir I. Newton, Vitringa, Bengel, Woodhouse, Fa- 
ber, R B. Elliott, U'ordsworth, Hengstenberg. 
Ebrard, and others. The recent commentary of 
Dean Alford belongs mainly to tliis school. 

6. The Prseterist 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 rel'ers ]iriiicipally to the triumph 
of Christianity over .ludaism and Paganism, sig- 
nalized in the downfall of .lerusalem and of Rome. 
The most eminent expounders of this view are 
Alcasar, Orotius, Hammond, Bossuet, Calmet, Wet- 
stein. Eichhorn, Hug, Herder, Ewald, Liicke, De 
VN'ette, Dlisterdieck, Stuart, Lee, and Maurice. 
This is the favorite interpretation with the critics 
of (iermany, one of whom goes so far as iv state 
tliat 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 
itrong reaction against some extravagancies of the 
wo preceding schools. They believe that the whole 
oook, excepting perhaps the first three chapters, 
*fer8 principally, 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. 8. R. Jlaitland, 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 
speed V 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 Prseterist exnositors it is urged, that 
propliecies fulfilled ouiiht to be 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 twt!ity- 
five years previously, could not occupy a large 
space in a prophecy: that the supposed predictions 
of the downfalls of .lerusalem 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 ditler very widely among themselves; 
that they assume without any authority that the 
1260 days are so many years; that several of it? 
applications — e. g. of the symliol of tiie 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 tliis 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 embelliiiunent. 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 (lit Interpretation 
of Pvophecij : 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. I^lliott, in his //«?-<e Apocalypiicce, 
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 valual)le portions 
of the other schemes. W. T. B. 

* Literature. The most valuable Introduction 
to the Apocalypse is Liicke's Versuch einer vvllstdn- 
diyen Einl. in die Offeiib. d. J( hanncs (1832), 
2d ed., greatly enlarged, 2 Abth., Bonn, 1852. 
Besides the Commentaries (a few of which will b« 


mecitionetl lielow), and the general Introductions to 
the N. T., as those of Hug, Schott, De \\'ette, 
Credner. Guericke, lieuss (see also his art. Jolian. 
Apok. in Ersch and Gruber's Allycm. Encyklop. 
Sect. II. Ikl. xxii. (1842) p. 79 fF.), Bleek, and Da- 
vidson, tiie following are some of the more notice- 
>ble essays on the authorship, date, and plan of the 
book: A Discourse^ Historical and Criticnl,on the 
Rtveliiliuiis (lici-lbed to St. John (by F. Abauzit), 
Lond. 1730; also, in a different trans., in his Mis- 
cellanies (I.ond. 1774). This was reviewed by L. 
Twells, in his Ci'il. Exdiuination of the. Lute New 
Test, and Version of the N. 7'., in O'rtek and 
EnyJish [JMace's], Lond. 1732, trans, in part by 
\Volf in his Cura Phihl. el Crit. v. 387 fF. (Basil. 
1741). (G. L. Oeder,} Freie Unters. iib. die sof/en. 
OJfiid). Joh., mil Anm. von Sender, Halle, 17G9. 
Seniler, A'eue Unters. iib. d. Apok., Halle, 1776. 
(F. G. Hartvvig,) Apol. d. Apok. ivider fdschen 
T>i(td u. filsches Lob, 4 Thle., Chemn. 1780-83. 
G. C. Storr, Neue Ajtjol. d. Offenb. Joh., Tub. 1782. 
Donker-Curtius, De Apoc. ab Indole, Doct. et 
scri/nndi (Jtnere Joannis Aposi. nan abhwrente, 
Ultraj. 1799. Bleek, Btitrdrje zur Krit. u. Deu- 
tumj d. Ojf'nib. Joh., in the Theol. Zeitschr. of 
Schleiermacher, De Wette and Liicke, Heft 2 (Bed. 
1820): conip. his Deitrdge zur Kvangelien-Kritik 
(18401, p. 182 K, 267 ff., and his review of Liicke in 
the Theol. Stud. u. Krit, 1854, Heft 4, and 1855, 
Heft 1. KolthofT, Apoc, Joanni Apost. vindicata, 
Hafn. 1834. Dainieniann, Wer ist der Verfasser 
d. tjffeiib. Johannis ? Hannov. 1841. Hitzig, 
Ueher Johannes Marcus u. seine Schriften, oder 
welcher .Johannes hat die Offetib. verfassi f Ziir. 
1843. Neander, Planting and Training of the 
Christian Church, p. 365 fF., Robinson's trans., 
N. Y. 1865. W. V. Rinck, Apokalypt. For- 
Bchnngen, Ziir. 1853. E. Boehmer, Verfasser u. 
Abfassungszeit d. Joh. Ajmc, Halle, 1856. G. K. 
Noyes, The Apocalypse analyzed and explained, 
in the Christ. Kxaminer for May 1860, reprinted 
in the Jourmd of Sac. Lit. for Oct. 1860. The 
Apocalypse, in the Westin. liev. for Oct. 1861. 
(S. Davidson,) The Apocalypse of St. John, in the 
National liev. for April 1864; substantially the 
same as his art. Iterelatiun 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. Rt'ville, La lit. apoc- 
alyptique chez lesjuifs el les Chretiens, in the Rev. 
des Deux Jfondes for Oct. 1, 1806. B. Weiss, 
Apokfdyptische Sttcdien, in Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 
1869, pp. 1-59, cf. p. 758 ff. 

Of the multitudinous Commenlaries 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 ft'.) and after 
him by Stuart (i. 450 ff.); comp. the outline in 
De Wette {lixeg. IJandb.). Jos. Mede, Claris 
Apocalyptica and Comm. in Apoc. (1627, 1632), in 
his Works, vol. ii. Grotius, Annot. in N. T., Par. 
1644, often reprinted. Bossuet, V Apoc. arec tuie 
explication. Par. 1690. yitr'inga, AuaKpcai'! Apoc. 
(1705), ed. alt., Amst. 1719, 4to. Daubuz, J'er- 
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, Lond. 1733, 4to. 
Lownian, Paraphrase and Notes on the Rev., Lond. 
1737, 4to, often reprinted. Bengel, Erkliirle Of- 


fenb. Johannis, Stuttg 1740, 3? Aufl. 1758; 
comp. his Gnomon. Herder, MAPAN A6A. Dat 
Buch V(m d. ZukunJ't des Herrn, Riga, 1779 
Eichhorn, Comm. in Apoc, 2 torn. Gott. 1791 
comp. Christian Disciple (Bost.) for April, 1822 
and Christ. Examiner, May, 1830. J. C. Wood- 
house, The Apoc. translated, trith Notes, Lond 
1805; sho Annotations on the Apoc. (a sequel tc 
Elsley and Slade). Lond. 1828. Heinrichs, Comm. 
in Apoc. 2 pt. Gott. 1818-21 (vol. x. of the Test. 
Nov. Edit. Kopp.). Ewald, Comm. in Apoc. exe- 
geticvs et criticus, Gott. 1828; Die Johanneischen 
Schriften ubers. u. erkldrl, Bd. ii. Gott. 1862. 
(Important.) Ziillig, />ie Offenb. Joh. vollstiindiy 
erklart, 2 Thle., Stuttg. 1834-40. Tinius, Die 
Offenb. Joh. durch J-.inl., Uebers. u. Erki. Allen 
versidndlich gemacht, Leipz. 1839. E. B. Elliott, 
Borce Apocalyptlcce (1843), 5th ed., 4 vols. Lond. 
1862. Moses Stuart, Comm. on the Apocolypse, 2 
vols. Andover, 1845, also reprinted in England; 
perhaps his most elaliorate work. I )e Wette, Kurze 
Erkl. d. Offenb. Joh., Leipz. 1848 (Bd. iii. Th. 2 
of his Exeg. Hamlb.), 3e Aufl., bearb. von W 
jMoeller, 18G2. Hen£;stenberg, Die Offenb. d. heil. 
Joh., 2 Bde. Berl. 1849, 2e Ausg. 1861-62, trans, 
by P. I'airbairn, Edin. 1851. Ebrard, Z'iV Offenb. 
Joh. erklart, Kiinigsb. 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. Diisterdieck, Krit. exeg. 
llandb. i\b. d. Offenb. Joh., Gtitt. 1859, 2e Aufl. 
1865 (Abth. xvi. of Meyer's Kommentar). F. I). 
Maurice, Lectures on the Apoc, Cambr. 1861. 
Bleek, Vorlesungen iiher 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, Aiford.and 
\Vordsworth, who has also published a separate ex- 
position of the book. See further the literaiLre 
under A.nticiuiist. 

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 AN'illiam Kelly (Lond. 1860), followed by his 
I^ectures on the Apoc. (Lond. 1861). The Second 
Epistle ff Peter, the Epistles of John and Jtcdas, 
and the Revelation: trans, from the Greek, with 
Notes, New York (Anier. 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, Gt)si>EL of, 
vol. ii. p. 1439 a, and the recent work of B. Wei.5S, 
Bibl. Theol. des N. T., Berl. 1868, p. 600 ff. 


RE'ZEPH (^*:^T1 [stronghold, Fiirst] : ^ 
['?a(p[s, Vat] '?a(peis, and 'PapeB;'^ [Comp. 
'Paa4(p, "9aa4fx ■, Sin. in Is. Pa^es:] lieseph). 
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 ISIesopotamian spots. The name is 
still a common one, Yakut's Lexicon quoting nine 
towns so called. Interpreters, however, are at va. 

« The Alex. MS. exhibits the same forms of the 
same as the \'at. ; but by a curious coincidence in- 

terchanged, namely, Va<i>e6 in 2 Kings, Pa^cit b 


ri;inoe lietween the principal two of these. The 
one is a d:i\ s march west of the Euphrates, on 
the road from Rncca to Hums (Geseuius, Keil, 
Theiiius. Michaelis, SiippL); the other, again, is 
east of the Euphrates, near Bagdad (Hitzig). The 
former is mentioned by Ptoleni}- (v. 15) under the 
name of 'Priffd<pa, and appears, in the present im- 
perfect state of our Mesopotamian knowledge, to 
he tlie more feasible of the two. G. 

RE'ZIA (S;;V'l [deUgkt]: 'Paatd; [Vat. 
Pa(Tfia:] J{(;si'i). An Asherite, of the sons of 
L'lla (1 Chr. vii. 39). 

RE'ZIN (rV"! [perh. stable, firm, or prince, 
Mes.j: 'Vaaacrdiv, 'Vaa'iv, ['Pa(7i7i, 'Pao-criV; Vat. 
in Is. Patreij', Pao-ei|U, VadffooV, Sin. in Is. Vaaa- 
<Twv\ Alex. Paaacroov, exc. Is. vii. 8, Vaffnv'■^ 
Rit.iin). 1. A kinn; of Damascus, contemporary 
with Pekah in Israel, and with Jotham and Ahaz 
in Judaea. Tlie policy of Hezin 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 .\haz, whose territories 
he invaded, in company with Pekah, soon after 
Ahaz had mounted the throne (about is. c. 741). 
The combined army laid siege to .lerusalem. where 
Ahaz was, but "'could not prevail against it" (Is. 
vii. 1; 2 K. xvi. 5). Rezin, however, "recovered 
Elath to S}Tia" (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 Akal)ah, 
which commanded one of the most important lines 
of trade in the East. Soon after this he was 
attacked by Tiglath-PUeser 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 (? Kik); and he himself slain 
(2 Iv. xvi. 9 ; compare Tiglath-Pileser's own in- 
scriptions, where the defeat of liezin 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 (Rawliuson's Herodotus, i. 467). 

G. K. 

2. ["Paa-dv ; in Neh., Rom. 'Pacra-cov, PA. 
Pafffoov.] One of the families of the Nethinim 
(Ezr. ii. 48; Neh. vii. 50). It furnishes another 
example of the occurrence of non-Israelite names 
amongst them, which is already noticed under j\Ie- 
IIUNI.M [iii. 1875, note a; and see Sisera]. In 1 
Esdr. the name appears as Daisan, in which the 
change from K to D seems to imply that 1 Esdras 
at one time existed in Syriac or some other Semitic 
language. G. 

BE'ZON (pn [jmnce]: [Rom. om.; Vat.] 
Ecrpci/*- Alex. Pa^cov'. Rnzon). The son of Eli- 
adah, a Svrian, who, when David defeated Hadad- 
e;^er king of Zobah, put himself at the head of a 
Iiand 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, jirudently esca])ed 
with some followers; or whether he gatliered his 
baud of the remnant of those who survived the 
siaugnter, does not appear. The latter is more 
probable. The settlement of Kezon at Damascus 
3o;'.ld not have been till some time after the dis- 


astrous battle in which the power of Hadadezei 
was broken, for we are told that David at the same 
time defeated the army of Damascene Syrians who 
Qame 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 
[Aid. 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 1 )avid defeated, was 
Hadad, and that his descendants and successors 
took the same name for ten generations. If this 
be true, Rezon was a usurper, Init the origin of the 
story is probably the confused account of the LXX. 
In the Vatican MS. of the LXX. the account of 
Kezon 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 Kaazarus. 
who at the head of a band of robbers was plunder- 
ing the country {Ant. viii. 7, § 6). It was Hadad 
and not Ffezon, according to the account in Jose- 
phus, who established himself king of that part 
of Syria, and made inroads upon the IsraeUtes. 
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 Kezon and Hezion, when written in Hei)re\? 
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 sutii- 
cient ground, though it was adopted both by Sir 
John IMarsham {Chron. Can. p. 346) and Sir Isaac 
Newton {Chronol. p. 221). Bunsen {Bibelioerk, i. 
cclxxi.) makes Hezion contemporary with iieho- 
boam, and probably a grandson of Rezon. . The 
name is Aramaic, and Ewald compares it with 
Rezin. W. A. W. 

RHE'GIUM {'Viiyiov. R/ier/nun). 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 Castou ano PuLUU.Y)the 
coin of Bruttii, which doubtless represents the 
forms that were painted or sculptured on the vessel 
.-Vnd, again, the notice of the intermediate position 
of Rhegiuni, 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 (Jreek colony: it 
was miserably destroyed by Dionysius of Syracuse: 
from .Augustus it received advantages which com- 
liined with its geographical position in making it 
important throughout the duration of the Roman 
empire: it was prominently associated, in the 
Middle .-Vges, with the varied fortunes of the Greek 
emperors, the Saracens, and the Romans: and 
still the modern Re(j(/io is a town of 10,000 in- 
habitants Its distance across the straits fron: 
Messnia is only about six miles, and it is well seer 



from the telegraph station aliove that Sicilian 
town.« J. S. H. 

RHE'SA {'Priad' Resa), son of Zorobabel in 
the genealogy of Christ (Lujje iii. 27). Lord A. 
Hervey has ingeniously conjectured that Rhesa is 
no person, but merely the title Rush, i.e. '• Prince," 
originally attached to the name of Zerubbabel, and 
gradually introduced as an independent name into 
the senealogy. He thus removes an important ob- 
stacle to the reconciliation of the pedigrees in Mat- 
thew and Luke (Hervey's Ge7iealoi/ies, etc. pp. Ill, 
114. 356—360). [Genealogy of Jesus Christ, 
i. 88f) n; Zerubbabel.] G. 

RHO'DA ('PcJSrj [rose-bush]: Rhode), lit. 
Ruse, 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). [Pok- 


RHODES ('Po'Sos [rose] : Rhochis). 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 touclied 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 Pataka in Lycia. It 
seems, from all the circumstiinces 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 
follous. 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 tlie 
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 [C.\RIA; Lyci.\]; 
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- 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 fomous as the home and 

a * Reg^io is in full view from the h.-irbor of Mes- 
sina. The Apostle passed there in winter, probably in 
February (as Luke's notations of time indicate), and 
lit that season he must have seen the mountains, both 
of Sicily and of the maniland, covered with snow. 
The n.arae is from p-qyvvni., to brtnk or burst through, 
^a if the sea had there torn off Sicily from the con- 
Cioent. See Pape's Wurterb. i/er Grieck. Ei^ennamen, 
». T. H. 

b Two incidents in the life of Herod the Great cou- 
paeud with Rhodes, are well worthy of mention here 


fortress of the Knights of St. .John. The most prom- 
inent remains of the city and harbi r are memorial! 
of those knights. The best account of Rhodes will 
be found in Ross, Reisen aiif den Griech. friseln, 
iii. 70-113, and Rtisen nach Kos, Hnlikarnas.'os, 
Rhndos, 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 adduce here is one of the 
early coins of Rhodes, with the conventional rose- 
flower, which l)ore 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. 

Coin of Rhodes. 

RHOD'OCUS ('Pt^Sortoj: Rhodoais). 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 {'p6Sos-- Rhodus), 1 Mace. xv. 23. 

RI'BAI [2 syl.] ("*3'^"] [whom Jehovah de- 
fends] : 'Piffd [Vat. Pei/3a] in Sam., Pe)3i6; Alex. 
Pr);8ai [FA. Pa/3eiai] inChr.: Rlbiii). The father 
of Ittai tlie IJenjamite of Gil>eah, who was one of 
David's mighty men (2 Sam. xxiii. 29 ; 1 Chr. xi. 

* RIBBAND. [Lace.] 

RIB'LAH, 1. (nb^nrr, with the definite 
article [feriiUty]: BtjAci <^ 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 .sprins;." 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 betwevr: 
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 favor 
{ibid. XV. 6, § 6). 

c Originally it appears to have stood Ap^TfAa ; buj 
the 'Ap has now attached itself to the preceding namt 
— SeTTt^afiap. Can this be the Akbela of 1 tAsuoc 
ix. 2? 


\[ount Hor, the entrance of Hamath, Zedad, Ziph- 
rou, I lazar-enan. 

2. The eastern boundary commenced from Ha- 
lar-enaTi, turning south: Shepham, Riblah, passing 
east of tlie 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 Buiihis^ 
and Kiblah, therefore, as a place near it. With 
this agrees Parchi, the Jewish traveller in the l^th 
and 14th centuries, who expressly discriminates be- 
tween the two (see the extracts in Zunz's Benju- 
min. ii. 418), and in our own day J. D. JMichaelis 
(BiOei J'iir Un'/eleJiiien ; Suppl. ad Lexica, No. 
2:il3), and Bonfrerius, the learned editor of Euse- 
bius's Onomiisticon. 

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

2. Riblah in the land of Hamath (H^Il'^, once 

nnb^"). i. e. Riblathah: '' AeySAafla in both 
MSS.; [Rom. in 2 K. xxiii. o3, 'Va^Kaajx, xxv. 
0, 21, 22. 'PejSAafla:] RMatlid). A place on the 
threat road lietween 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- 
nezaar waited while the sieges of Jerusalem and of 
I'yre were being conducted by his lieutenants; 
hither were brought to him the wretched king of 
Judsea and his sons, and after a tune a selection 
from all raidcs 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 nioiuniients (Jer. xxxix. .5, 6, 
lii. !), 10, 20, 27; 2 K. xxv. 6. 20, 21). In like 
manner Phir.ioh-Neeho, after his successful victory 
over the Babylonians at Carchemish, returned to 
Rililali and summoned Jehoahaz from Jerusalem 
before him (2 K. xxiii. 3-3). 

This Riblah has no doubt been discovered, still 
retaining its ancient name, on the right (east) 
l)ank of the e^.(4s!/ (Orontes), upon the great road 
which connects Bntlbek and Hums, about 35 miles 
N. v.. of the former and 20 miles S. W. of the latter 
place. The advantages of its position for the en- 
•ampment of \ast hosts, such as those of Egypt and 
Babylon, are enumerated by Dr. Rol)inson, who vis- 
ited it in 18.52 {BM. Ris.'m. .545). He descrilies 
it as "lying on tiie lianks of a mountain stream in 
the midst of a vast and fertile plain yielding the 
most abundant supiilies of forage. From this point 
vue roads were open by .\leppo and the Euphrates 
10 Nineveh, or l)y Palmyra to Baliylon .... by 
the end of Lelianon and the coast to Palestine and 
Egypt, or through the Bukaa and the Jordan 
Valley to the centre of the Holy Land." It ap- 



pears to have been first alluded to by Buckingh* 
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: "la one hour so great riches is come to 
nought" (so also Wisd. v. 8). The original plu- 
ral was ficliessis (Fr. lichesse), as in Wicklitle's 
version, and was generally obsolete at the tinie of 
the translation of the A. V. It stood at first also 
in Jer. xlviii. 36, but as Trench mentions (Authur- 
ized Version, p. 60) was tacitly corrected, by 
changing "is" to "are." H. 

RIDDLE (HTri: a'lviyfxa, Trp6l3\r]ixa-- P'O- 
bleimi, j/ivposltld). 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 (TTf)o(p^ Koywv, 
(TTpocpal ■Kapa^oXuv (Wisd. viii. 8 ; Ecclus. xxxix. 
2), and TrepiTrAo/cr; \6ywv (Eur. PImn. 497; Ge- 
sen. s. r.), and the Latin scirjms, which appears to 
have been similarly used (Aul. Gell. Nucl. Att. 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 sulijeet {^■Enigmata //ebraica, 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. I, ^Kd( weipdcrai avrhu iv al- 
vly/xacri ; 2 Chr. ix. 1 ) were rather " hart! ques- 
tions " referring to profound inquiries. Solomon 
is said, however, to have been very fond of the 
riddle proper, for Josepbus quotes two profane his- 
torians (>lenander of Ephesus, and Dius) to authen- 
ticate a story that Solomon proposed immerous 
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, 
vpho 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 aXviy/j.a occurs only once in 
the N. T. (1 Cor. xiii. 12, -darkly." eV aiviyixari, 
comp. Num. xii. 8; Wetstein, N. T. ii. 158); 
but, in the wider meaning of the word, many in- 
stances of it occur ill 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: 

a If Mr. Porter's identifications of ZeJaJ and Ilat- 
uireuan are adopted, the difficulty i.s increased tenfold. 
'J Tbe two great MSS. of the LXX. — Vati'iau (Mai) 
Vid .\lex. — present the name as follows : — 
2 K. xxiii. 33, 'ApAaa ; AcjSAaa. 
% K. XX7. 6, 'lepSe^Aaflcii'; Se^KaBd. 

2 K. XXV. 20, AejSAaSa ; Ae/3Aa8a. 
2 IC. XXV. 21, 'PelSAnea; Ae^Aafla. 
Jer. lii. 9, 10, 26, 27, Ae|8Aa05. in both. 
c * For interesting notices of this Riblah, see Dr. 
Thomson's diary of a " Journey from Aleppo to Iisfe 
anon," BM. Sacra, v 683 f. H. 



• manifestis {jascimur, ohscuris exercemur " {De 
Uuct. Christ, ii. 6). 

We know that all ancient nations, and especially 
Orientals, have been fond of riddles (Rosenmiiller, 
Mvrymd. iii. 68). We find traces of the custom 
anions; the Arabs (Koran, xxv. 35), and indeed 
several Arabic books of riddles exist — as Kttdb al 
Ali/dz in 1469, and a book of riiidles solved, called 
Ahd al themin. But these are rather emblems and 
devices than what we call riddles, although they 
are very ingenious. The Persians call them A/i/iiz 
and Maamma (D'Herbelot, s. v. Algaz). They 
were also known to the ancient Egyptians (Jablon- 
ski. Pantheon ^■Eyypt. 48). They were especially 
used in banquets both by Greeks and Romans (Miil- 
ler, Dot: ii. 392; Atheu. x. 457; Pollux, vi. 107; 
A. Gell. xviii. 2; Diet, of Ant. p. 22), and the kind 
of witticisms adojited may be seen in the literary 
dinners described by Plato, Xenophon, Athenaeus, 
Plutarch, and Macroliius. Some ha\e groundlessly 
'Upposed that the pro\erbs of Solomon, Leniuel, 
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. Uratt. iv. 
11) no riddle at all, because the Pliilistines did not 
jiosse-ss tlie only clew on which the solution could 
depend. I'or this reason Samson had carefully con- 
cealed the fact even from his parents (Judg. xiv. 
14, etc.). Other ancient riddles inverse are that 
of the Sphinx, and that which is said to have 
caused the death of Homer by his mortification at 
being unalile to solve it (Plutarch. Vit. /Join.). 

Franc, .lunius distinguishes between the i,i\'(ittr 
enigma, where the allegory or obscure intimation 
is continuous throughout the passage (as in F^. 
xvii. 2, and in such poems as the Syrinx attributed 
to Theocritus); and the lesser enigma or {nrai- 
viy/xa, 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 D5?^ ("a portion," and " Shechem," 

the town of Ephraira) in Gen. xlviii. 22; on ~l1!iX2 

(mdtzor, "a fortified city," and D^"T.'!iQ, Miz- 

raim, Egypt) in Jlic. vii. 12; on ^^'.^ {Shaked, 

"an almond-tree"), and ^^2^ (shdkad, "to 

hasten "), in Jer. i. 11; on HTS^"^ (Diimah, mean- 
ing "Edom" and "the land of death"), in Is. 
Kxi. 11; on ?|tC'C7, Slieshach (meatung "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 (Jnos- 
tics, some of the Fathers, and the Jewish Cabbalists. 
The latter called it Gematria (i. e. yfwfxiTpia) of 
which instances may be found in Carpzov {App. 
Crit. p. 542), Reland {Ant. Ilebr. i. 25), and some 


of the commentators on Rev. xiii. 16-18. Thus 
irn^ (ndchdsh), "serpent," is made by the Jews 
one of the names of the Messiah, because its 

numerical value is equivalent to H'^tptt; and the 
names Shushan and Esther are coiuiected 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 yEons, and the Gnostics used the name 
Abraxas as an amulet, because its letters aracunt 
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 Tertullian 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. AVe quote one which is exactly 
similar to it, the answer being found in the name 
'iTjo-oOs = 888, thus : I = 10 -f ^ = 8 -f o" = 200 
4- o = 70 4- u = 400 + s = 200 = 888. It is 
as follows, and is extremely curious: 

*H|ei (TapKO(f>6pos 6vt)toIs o/noiov/iiei'OS iv yfj 
T€(ra'epa. 4>^^'V^^'^^ 0e'pci, ra 6* a<^a)i'a Sv* avrta 
AicTCTiOi' a(jT payahuiv (?), apiOfuhv 6' oAoi/ egoi'O/otjji'w 
'Oktio ■yap M-0i'd6as, 0(rcras SexaSas ejri TOiirois, 
'H6' eKaTOvrdSas oktio a7ri(rTOTe'pois av8pu>Tioi,i 
Out/Ojua fiijAujo'et. 

With examples like this before us, it would be 
absurd to doubt that St. John (not greatly re- 
moxed in time from the Christian forgers of the 
SibyHine verses) intended some name as an answer 
to the num1)er GfW. The true answer must be 
settled by the Apocalyjjtic commentators. ISIost 
of the F'athers supposed, even as far back as Ire- 
nanis, the name Actreij/os to be indicated. A list 
of the other very numerous solutions, proposed in 
diflcrent ages, may be found in Elliott's Horce 
Ap<icalyplic(B, from which we have quoted several 
of these instances (flor. A^'oc. iii. 222-234). 

F. W. F. 

* RIE for RYE, Ex. ix. 32 and Is. xxviii. 25 
(marg. .</je/Oj in the oldest editions of the A. V. 


RIM'MON (]''^^~] [pomeyranate]: •pe/^v. 
Revimon). Rimmon, a Benjamite of Beeroth, was 
the father of Rechab and Baanah, the murderers 
of Ishbosheth (2 Sam. iv. 2, 5, 9). 

RIM'MON (V'^^1 [pomeyranate]: 'Ve/j.fidv: 
Reinmon). 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 nho in the proper names Hadad- 
rinimon and Tabrimmon, but its signification is 
doubtful. vSerarius, quoted by Selden {Dc dis 
Syris, ii. 10), refers it to the Heb. rimmon, a 
pomegranate, a fruit sacred to Venus, who is thus 
the deity worshii)ped under this title (compare 
Pomona, from pomvm). Ursinus {Arboretum Bibl. 
cap. 32, 7) explains Rimmon as the pomegranate. 

o In this passai^e it is jjcnerally thought that She- 
Irtisch is put for Babel, hy t!u- principle of alphabeti- 
iu inrersion known ;t< the iviihash. Tt will be seen 
ihst the 5as9a;;es abuve quote! ax-e ehietly iustauces 

of paronomasia. On the profound a<<e of this fi^re 
by the prophets aud other writers, see Ewald, DU 
Proptiflen d. Alt. Bund. i. 48 ; Steintnal, Urspr. d 
Sprache, p. 23. 


,he snililem of the fertilizing principle of nature, 
the personified naiur<t ni(luriin.% a s3'ml)ol of fre- 
quent occurrence in the old religions (Bahr, Sym- 
bolib, ii. 12-2). If this l>e the true origin of the 
name, it presents us with a relic of the ancient 
tree-worship of the I'^ast, which we know to have 
prevailed in Palestine. But Selden rejects this 
derivation, and proposes instead that Kinniion is 

from the root UV^, 7-uin, "to he Linh," and sig- 
nifies "most high;" like the Pluenician EUoun, 

and Heb. l^^?^. Hesychius gives "Pajxas, 6 
v\pi<TTOi de6s. Clericus, Vitringa, Rosenmliller, 
and Gesenius were of the same opinion. 

Movers {Phiin. i. 196, &e.) regards Rimnion as 
the abbreviated form of Hadad-I!immon (as Peor 
for Ba!',l-Pe6r), Hadad being the sun-god of the 
Syrians. Combining this with the ponieiiranate, 
which was his symbol, lladad-Rimmon would then 
be the sun-god of the late sunnner, who ripens the 
pomegranate and other fruits, and, after infusing 
into them iiis proiiuctive power, dies, and is 
mourned with the " mourning of Hadadrimmon 
in the valley of Megiddou " (Zech. xii. 11). 

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

W. A W. 

RIM'MON ( 31S"3, i- e. RimmonO [pome-, 
tjraii-ite]: r] 'Pe/j-ixiiy'- Remmonu). 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 .losh. 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 
(•losh. xxi. 3.5) may have been originally Rimmon, 
as the 1) 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 Rinunon 
of ^ebulun (.Josh. xix. 13), in the A. V. Rkmmon- 
METHOAR. The redundant letter was probably 
transferred, in copying, from the succeeding word 
— at an early date, since all the iMSS. appear to 
exhibit it, as does also the Targuni of .Joseph. 
[Dr. Robinson inquires whether this Rimnion 
may not be the present liumnidnvh, a little north 
of Nazareth. See B'M. Rts. ii. 3-10 (2d ed. ). — H.] 


RIM'MON (Vl^l {t><-^me(ii:mrtte] : 'Epaj/xiie, 
Pefiixdu; Alex. Pe,U;ua)(/; [in 1 Chr., Rom. 'Pefj.- 
yu)u, Vat.'-l Reimmni). A town in tlie 
southern portion of .Judah (.Josh. xv. 32), allotted 
to Simeon (.losh. xix. 7; 1 Chr. iv. 32: in the 
former of these two passages it is inaccurately given 
in the .\. V. as Rkmmun). In each of tiie aliove 
lists the name succeeds that of .-Vix, also one of the 
cities of .ludah and Simeon. In the catalogue of 
the places reoccupied by tiie .Jews after the return 
from Baliylon (Neh. xi. 29) the two are joined 

("j1!2"1 1^"^ '. LXX. omits: et in Remnvm), and 
appear in the A. V. as F.ii-Rimmon. There is 
lothing to support this single departure of the 
Melirew text from its practice in the other lists 
fxcept the fact that the Vatican LXX. (if the 
rlition of Mai may be trusted) has joined the 
sames in each of the lists of .loshua, from which 
I may be inferred that at the time of the LXX. 


translation the Hebrew text there also showed 
them joined. On the other h.and there does no* 
appear to be my 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 Oiiomdsiicon of Eusebius and Jerome; but 
they locate it at 15 miles north of Jerusalem, ob- 
viously confounding it with the Rock Rinnnon. 
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 Vuljiate 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 (doul)tless the 
ancient Guskah), marked by a pomegranate tree 
— " coUis Rimnion (hoc e'nnn Gabaa soiiat, nbi 
arbor malagranati est) usque ad australein plagam 
Jerusalem." (i. 

RIM'MON PA'REZ (^"19 lb") [pome- 
f/rann/e of the breach or rent]: 'Pefi/j-wv ^ap4s) 
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 form in Baal-Perazini, 
" Baal of the breaches." Perhaps some local con- 
figuration, such as a " cleft," might account for its 
being added. It stands between Rithniah and 
Libnali. No place now known has been identified 
with it. H. H. 

RIM'MON, THE R0CK(]'lI2nrT" V^D: 
7] TrsTpa. Tod 'P e /j./ji.civ ; Joseph, irerpa 'Poa' pelra 
cuji/g vocnbulum est Re)n»ion ; petni Remmon). 
A cliff (such seems rather the force of the Hebrew 
word selii) or in.accessible natural fastness, in which 
the six hundred Benjamites who escaped the slaugh- 
ter of Gibeah took refu<je, 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" (mklbar), 
that is, the wild uncultivated (though not unpro- 
ducti\'e) 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 limeston« 
everywhere protruding, and the houses clinfjins: 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 Wailij Miit- 
yah ; wliile on the west side it is almost equally 
isolated Ijy a cross valle.y of great depth (Porter, 
Hnm/bk. p. 217; Mr. Finn, in Tan de Velde, 
Memoir, p. 345). In position it is (as the crow 
flies) 3 miles east of Betliel, and 7 N. E. of Gilieah 
( Tuli'il el-Ful). Thus in every particular of name, 
character, and situation it agrees with the require- 

« In two out of its four occurrences, tlie article it 
omitted both in the Hebrew ind LXX. 

2734 RING 

meiits of the Rock Rimnion. It was known in 
ibe days of Eusebius and Jerome, who mention it 

( OiioiH'islicon, " Remmoii " ) — though confounding 
it with Kinnnon in Simeon — as 15 Koinan miles 
nortlnvards from Jerusalem. G. 

RING(riVSl?: SaKTvXios- anrmlus). The 
rins was regarded as an indispensalile article of a 
Hebrew's attire, inasmuch as it contained his sig- 
net, and even owed its name to this circumstance, 
tiie term tithhaaih being derived from a root sig- 
nifying " to impress a seal." It was hence the 
s\ nibol of authority, and as such was presented by 
Pharaoh to Joseph (Gen. xli. 42), by Ahasuerus to 
Haman (Esth. iii. 10), by Antiochus to Philip (1 
IMacc. vi. 15), and by the father to the prodigal 
son in the parable (Luke xv. 22). It was treasured 
accoidingly, 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. S/iahb. 
p. 0. § 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 
wiirn on the right hand (Jer. I. 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 h,g}ptian rijifjs have 
been discovered, most of them made of gold, very 
mas.sive, and containing either a scarabseus or an 
engraved stone (Wilkinson, ii. 337). The number 

Egyptian Rings. 

of rings worn by the Egyptians was truly remark- 
dble. The same profusion was exhibited also by 
the Greeks and Konians, particularly by men (Did. 
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 xpvo'oSaKTv- 
\ios, meaning not simply " with a gold ring,'' as 
in the A. V., but " golden-riflged " (like the 
Xpv<r6x^^Pi " golden- handed " of Lucian, Timon, 
c. 20). implying equally well the presence of several 
gold rings. Eor the term (^dlil, rendered "ring" 
in Cant. v. 14, see Oh.vamekts. W. L. B. 

* RINGLEADER (Acts xxiv. 5), applied to 
Paul by Tertullus in his speech before Felix, where 
it stands for wpwroardTris. It implies, of itself, 
nothing opprolirious, being properly a military title, 
namely, of one who stands in front of the ranks 
as leader. It marks a bad pretimiiience here, 
especially from being associated with \oi/x6s, 
"])laL:ue, pest" (\. V. pestilent 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']: 
'Avd.\ Alex. Vavvuiv- Rimvi). One of the sons 
>f .Shimon in an obscure and fragmentary gene- 
tlogy of the descendants of Judah (1 Chr. iv. 20). 
In the LXX. and Vulgate he is made "the son of 
rtanan," Ben-hanan being thus translated. 

" nD'"^. This reading is preferred by Bochart 
Pkaitg, iii. 10), and is connected by him with the 


RI'PHATH (nS"'"] [a breaking in piece», 
terioj; Hin.]: 'PicpdO; -A^lex. PKpae in Chr.: Ri- 
phath), 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 locahty which it indicates. The name itself 
has been variously identified with that of the Rhi- 
piean mountains (Knobel). the river Rhelias in Bi- 
thynia (Bochart), the Rhibii. a people living eastward 
of the Caspian Sea (Schultbess), and the Ripheans 
[Kiphathajans?]. the ancient name of the Paphlago- 
niaiis (.loseph. Anl. i. (j, § 1 ). This last view is cer- 
tainly favored by the contiguity of Ashkenaz and 
Togarmah. The weight of opitiion is, however, in 
favor of the Rhipa'an mountains, which Knobel 
( \'iilkert. p. 44) identifies etymologically and geo- 
grapliically with the Carpathian range in the N. E. 
of I lacia. The attempt of that writer to identify 
Ri|ihath with the Celts or Gauls, is evidently based 
on the assumption that so important a rtice 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 (Jauls were for any lengthened period 
settled in the neighl)orhood of the Carpathian range. 
The Rliipar'an mountains themselves existed more 
in the imagination of the Greeks than in reality, and 
if the received etymology of that name (from pnrai, 
"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 Rhiptean 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 (nD"1 [n rnin]: [Rom. Peaadf, 
Vat. A€cr(Ta\ Alex.] Peaaa'- livssa). 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 
Lilinah and Kekelathah, and has been considered 
(Winer, s. v.) identical with Rasa in the Peuting. 
liinev., 32 Roman miles from Ailah (Elah), and 
203 miles south of Jerusalem, distinct, however, 
from the 'Vrtacra of Jose|)hus {Ant. xiv. 15, § 
2). No site has been identified with Rissah. 

H. H. 

RITH'MAH (n^nn [see below] :'Pa0a/ia: 
Ret h ma). The name of a n)arch-st;Uion in the 
wilderness (Num. xxxiii. 18, 19). It stands there 
next to Hazeroth [Hazehoth], and probably lay 
in a N. \i. direction from that spot, but no place 
now known has been identified with it. The name 

■ G_,_ 

is probably coiniected with ^"[^"1, Arab. (vi*\> 

commonly rendered "juniper," but more correctly 
"broom." It can-ies the aflSrmative Tl, common 
in names of locality, and found especially among 
many in the catalogue of Num. xxxiii. H. H. 

names of the town Tohata and the mountain Tibiua 
in the N. of Aiia .Miuor. 


KIVER In the sense in which we employ the 
word, namely, for a perennial stream of consiileriible 
lize. a river is a nmcli rarer oliject in the East than 
in the West. The majority of the inhabitants of 
Palestine at the present day have probably never 
seen one. \\'ith the exception of the Jordan and 
the IJl'Diy, 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 sunlv in a 
narrow bed, and concealed from view by a dense 
growth of shrubs. 

The cause of this is twofold : on the one hand 
th 3 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 
eliniate durinir the summer. There is little doubt 
tliat iu 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 Lave 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, Ndhar (^rTl). Pos- 
sibly used of the Jordan iu Ps. Lsvi. 6, Ixxiv. 15; 
of the great iIesopv.famian and Eg3'ptian rivers 
generally in Gen. ii. 10, Kx. vii. 19; 2 K. xvii. 6; 
Ez. iii. 15, &c. But with the definite article, linn- 
Nahor, ''the river," it signifies invariably the 
Euphrates (Gen. xxxi. 21; Ex. xxiii. 31; Num. 
xxiv. 6; 2 Sam. x. 16, &c., &c.). With a few ex- 
ceptions (Josh. i. 4, xxiv. 2, 1-4, 15; Is. lix. 19; Ez. 
xxxi. 15), nd/idr 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 (^H^), for 
which our translators have used promiscuously, and 
sometimes almost alternately, " valley," " brook." 
and " river." Thus the "brook" and the " val- 
ley " of Eslicol (Num. xiii 23 and xxxii. 9); the 
" valley," the "brook," and the "river" Zered 
(Num. xxi. 12; Deut. ii. 13; Am. vi. li); the 
" brook" and the "river " of Jabbok (Gen. xxxii. 
23; Deut. ii. 37), of Anion (Num. xxi. 14; Deut. ii. 
24 1, of Ivislion (Judg. iv. 7; 1 K. xviii. 40). Com- 
pare also Deut. iii. 16. <t-c.« 

Neither of these words expresses the thing in- 
tended; but the term "brook" is peculiarly un- 
happy, since the pastoral 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 
Anion forces its way through a ravine several hun- 
drel feet deep and about two miles wide across the 
lop. The Wadij Ztrka, probably the Jabbok, 
vhish Jacob was so anxious to interpose between 
Lis family and Esau, is equally unlike the quiet 
'meadowy brook" with which we are familiar. 



And those which are not so abrupt and savage U9 
in their width, their irregularity, their forlorn arid 
look when the torrent has subsided, utterly unlike 
"brooks." Unfortunatelj" 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 flows 
through it. .Ainswortli, in his Annotations (on 
Num. xiii. 23), says that "bourne" has both 
meanings; but " bounie " 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 {Oeog. .louvn. xxiv. 209) adopts the Italian 
jiitmnrii. 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 (~1"^S^), a word of Egyptian origin 
(see Gesen. Tlies. 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 
Zxodus, and is rendered by our translators " the 
river," except in the following passages, Jer. xlvi. 
7, 8; Am. viii. 8, I.k. 5, where they substitute "a 
flood " — much to the detriment of the prophet's 
metaphor. [See Nile, vol. iii. p. 2140 6.] 

4. Yubal ( '5''"")5 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. Ptleg (U v2), from an uncertain root, prob- 
acy 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. Aph'ik (p"'2S). This appears to be used 
without any clearly distinctive meaning. It is 
probably from a root signifyinc; strength or force, 
and may signify any rush or body of water. It it 
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. C "'V^ "Tlj : woTO/ubj AlyviTTou' Jluviui 
^gi/pti (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 

o Jerome, in his Qiaxstioties in Genesirr , xxvl. 19, j est, nunquam enim in valle i»i-tnihtr puteus nqutt 
iltws the following curious distinction between a val- \ vU-ir.'^ 

ey sni atorrcat; " Et hie pro valte torrnu irriflus * * It should be " river '" (TroTa/iosl in both instaa 

I ce6, RfT >^4i. lo, 16, and not " aof4 " (A. Y.>- H 



2. C^jiip Vmj : x^i^dppovs AtyvTVTov, 
pdpay^ AiyvTrrov, irojafxhs AtyvTrrou, 'Ph'okA 
oovpa, pi-: iorrens Aif/ypli, rims ^rhJyij/jli (Num. 
xxxiv. 5; Josh. xv. 4, 47; 1 K. viii. 05 ; 2 K. xxiv. 
7; Is. xxvii. 12, in the last passage translated '• the 
stream of Egypt"). It is the common opinion 
tliat this second term designates a desert stream 
iin the border of Egypt, still occasionally flowing in 
the \ alley called IVcidi-l-Areesh. 'i'he centre of 
the valley is occupied by the bed of this tcirrent, 
which only flows after rains, as is usual in the des- 
ert \alleys. 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 
Qiust iiave been great uncertainty on the sul ject. 
[n the LXX. the term is translated by two literal 
meanings, or perliaps three, but it is doubtful 

whether ^H^ can be rendered "river," and is once 
represented by Khhiocolura (or Rhinocorura), the 
name of a town on the coast, near the \\'ri(/i- 
l-'Areesh, to which the modern El-Areesh has suc- 

This stream is first mentioned as the point where 
the southern border of the Promised Land touclieil 
the ISIediterranean, which foinned its western bor- 
der (Num. xxxiv. 3-0). 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 westernn)ost 
of the Philistine cities (47). In the later history 
we find Solomon's kingdom extending " from the 
entering in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt " 
(1 K. viii. 65), and Egypt limited in the same man- 
ner wliere 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 
l)ad taken from the river of Egypt unto the river 
Euphrates all that pertained to the king of l^g3'pt " 
(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 di.stinctly 
specified instead of "the Nachal of Egypt." In 
the promise to Abraham, the Nile, " the river of 
Egyjjt," 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 Shilior, which is always the 
Nile, spoken of as a border of the land, in .losliua's 
description of tlie territory yet to be conquered : 
' This [is] the land that yet remainetli : all the 
legions of the Philistines, and all Geshuri, from 
the Sihor, which [is] liefore Egypt, even unto the 
borders of Ekron northward, [whicli] is counted 
to the Canaanite " (Josh. xiii. 2, 3). 

a Herodotus, whose account is rather obscure, say.s 
chat from Phoenicia to the borders of the city Cadytis 
{probably Gaza) the country belonged to the Pala;stine 
3_vriaus ; from Cadytis to Jenysus to the .'Vrabian kiug ; 
.hen to the Syrians again, as far as Lake Serbonis, near 
Mount Casius. At Luke Serbonis, Egypt began. The 
eastern extremity of Lake Serbonis is somewhat to tlie 
westward of llhinocolura, and Mount Casius is more 
than halfway from the latter to I'elusium. Herodotus 
afterwards states, more precisely, that from .Jenysus to 
" Lake Serbonis and .Mount Casius " ivas three days' 
journey through a desert without watf r. He evidently 


It must be observed that the distinctive chanuy 
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 fi'om posi- 
tion as forming the boundary. 

If we infer that tlie 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 
liave extended so far; the Wudi-i-' Aree»h is dis- 
tant from Gaza, the most western of the Philistine 
towns; but I'elusium, at the mouth and most east- 
ern 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 tn 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 I'.gyptians, on account of their isolated position 
and tlie sterility of the country, though no doubt 
maintaining a half-independence." All doulit on 
this point seems to be set at rest by a passage, in 
a hierotclyphic inscription of Setliee I , head of the 
XlXth dynasty, b. c. cir. 1340, on the north wall 
of the gveat temple of El-Karnak, which mentions 
" the foreigners of the SHASU from the fort of 
TARU to the land of KANANA " (SHASU 
ANA, Brugsch, Geoi/7-. Inschr. i. p. 2(jl, No. 
12f>5, 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, fi'om the bas- 
relief, representing the return of Sethee I. to Egypt 
from an eastern expedition, near the inscription 
just mentioned, to ha\e been between a Leontop- 
olis and a liraiich of the Nile, or perhaps canal, on 
the west side of which it was situate, commanding 
a bridge {Ibid. No. 12G6, pi. xlviii.). The Leontop- 
olis is either the capital of the Leontopolite Nome, 
or a town in the Heliopolite Nome mentioned by 
.losephus [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. 260-206, iii. i)p. 20, 21 ). 

Egypt, therefore, in its most flourishing period, 
evidently extended no further than the east of the 
Delta, its eastern boundary 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 identificatioDS of Pelusium and Riount Casing, 
we must place them much neai-er together, and the 
latter far to the west of the usual supposed place (Sm 
town). But in this case Herodotus would intend th« 
western extremity of Lake Serbonis, which seems un 


.'^anaan. It might lie supposed that at this time 
Ihe SHASU had made an iiiruad into ligypt, but 
it must he remembered that iu the latter period of 
the kings of .ludah, and during the classical period, 
Felusium was the key of ivgyiit on this side. Tlie 
Philistines, in the time of tlieir greatest power, 
which appears to have been contemporary with the 
period of the Judges, may well be supposed to 
iiave reduced the Arabs of this neutral territory to 
the condition of tributaries, as doubtless was also 
done liy 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 lieen fully occu- 
pied (1 K. iv. 21, comp. 24). When, therefore, 
it is specified that the Philistine territory as far as 
the Nachal-Mizraim remained to be taken, it need 
scarcely be inferred that the territory to be inhab- 
ited by the Israelites was to extend so far, and this 
Stream's being an actual iioundary 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 
njust conclude that the name Shihor is also applied 
to the hitter, although elsewhere designating the 
Nile," for we have seen that Xachal-Mizraim and 
Shihor are used interchangealily to designate a 
stream on the border of the Promised Land. This 
difficulty seems to overthrow the common opinion. 
It must, however, be remembered that in Joshua 
xiii. .3, Shihor has the article, as though actually 
or originally an appellative, the former seeming to 
be the more obvious inference from the context. 
[Shihoh ok Egypt; Sihor.] 

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 Naclial- 
Mizraim may come from a lost dialect, and the 

parallel Arabic word wddee, itf i^ 1 • though ordi- 
narily used for valleys and their winter-torrents, 
as in the case of the Wddi-l-' Arees/i itself, has 
been employed by the Arabs in Spain for true 
rivers, the Guadalquivir, etc. It niay, however, be 
suggested, that in Nachal-Mizraim we have the 
ancient form of the Neet-.\/isr of the Arabs, and 
that Nachal was adopted from its similarity of 
sound to the original of NeiAos It may, indeed, 
be objected that Ne?Ao$ is held to lie 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 Kosetta Stone for 
EAAHNIKOI2 rPAMMASIN), in the li^ts of 
eoimtries and nations, or tribes, conquered by, or 

« There is a Shihor-libnath in the no-th of Pales- 
line, menticned in Joshua (xix. 26), and supposed to 
orrespot.d to the Belus, if its uame signify " the river 
of glass."' But we have no ground for giving Shihor 
the significatioa " river ;"' and when the connection 
Bf the Egyptians, and doubtless of the Phoenician and 
>ther colonists of northeastern Egypt, with the manu- 
bcture of glass is remembered, it seems more likely 
tbat Shihor-hbuath was named from the Nile. 

I" We agree with Lepsius iu this identiecition ( Ueber 

RizPAH 2787 

subject to, the Pharaohs, as earlj' as the reign of 
Amenoph III., b. c. cir. 1400.'' An Iranian ajid 
even a Greek connection with Egypt as early u 
the time of the Exodus, is therefore not to be 
treated as an impossibility. It is, however, re- 
markable, that the word Ne?Aos does not occur in 
the Homeric poems, as though it were not of 
Sanskrit origin, but derived Irum the Ei;yptians oi 

Brugsch compares the Egyptian MUAW EN 
KEM " Water of P^gypt,"' mentioned in the phrase 
" From the water of Egypt as far as NEHEKEEN 
[.Me.sopotamia] inclusive," but there is no internal 
evidence in favor of his conjectural identification 
with the stream of Wddi-l- Aret&h {Geog. /nschr. 
i. 54, 55, pi. vii. no. 303). K. S. P. 

* Dr. J. L. Porter {Handbook^ and Art. iii 
Kitto's Cyclop, of BM. Lit.) proposes to solve the 
difficulty created by the terms Nidiar-'SVizY-MVii and 
..V((('A"/-iIizraim by making " the proper distinc- 
tion lietween the country given in covenant promise 
to Abraham, and that actually allotted to th« 
Israelites." The Nile may have been in contem- 
plation in the original promise, and the terra 
jV((/(rtr-iSIizraim may have been " the designation 
of the Nile in Abraham's time, belbre the Egyp- 
tian word year became known." 

j\ iclinl is connnonly 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 
Gelial — and it is highly improbable that this 
term would have been chosen to designate the vast 
and ceaseless volume of the Nile. Robinson {Pliys. 
Geog. of the Holy Land, p. 12-J) 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- Ansli ; and comes from the passes 
of .] tbd 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- Ariah, on the site of 
the ancient H/iinocolura, 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 ia 
upon its side. J. P. T. 

* RIVERS OF WATER. [Foot, Wateb- 


RIZ'PAH (nS!^'-) : 'p^acpd; [Alex, in 2 Sam. 
xxi. 8, Vecpcfiad;] Joseph. 'Puicrcpd- Jiefphn), 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 I'esta- 
ment — Ruth, Rahab, .lezebel, etc. — Rizpah would 
seem to have been a foreigner, a Ilivite, descended 
from one of the ancient worthies of tliat nation, 
Ajah or Aiah,<^ son of Zibeon, whose name and 

i/er Namen der lonier aiif den Mg. Denkmalern, 
Kijuigl. Akad. Berlin). His views have, however, been 
combated by Bunsen {Egt/pt's Place, iii. 603-606), 
Brugsch ( Geogr. Inschr. ii. 19, pi. xiii. no. 2), and D« 
Rougt; ( Tombeau d^A/imes, p. 43). 

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



fame are preserved in the Ishmaelite record of Gen. 
sxxvi. If this be the case, Saul was conuiiencino; 
a practice, which seems with subsequent kings to 
have thrown ahnost into a rule, of choosing non- 
Israelite vonien for tlieir inferior wives. David's 
intrigue witii Bathsheba, or Bath-shua, the wife of 
a Hittite, and possibly herself a Canaanitess," is per- 
haps not a case in point; but Solomon, Kehoboam, 
and their succes.sors, seem to have had their harems 
filled with foreign women. 

After the death of Saul and occupation of the 
Eountr}- west of the -lordan 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 Aimer's death through Joab's treachery, 
and ultimately to the murder of Ishbosheth him- 
self. The accusation, whether true or false — and 
from Abner's xehenient 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 counection with the 
widow or the uiistress of the deceased king." (See 
Micliaelis, L'nrs of J/ose.s, art. 54.) It therefore 
amounted to an insinuation that Abner was about 
to make an attempt on the throne. 

^\'e hear nothing more of Kizpah till the tragic 
story which has made her one of the most familiar 
oljects 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. II. i. 4, 5, &c., &c.). But it is questionable 
whether the ordinary conception of the scene is 
accurate. The se\en victims were not, as the A. 
V. implies, "hung;" they were crucified. The 
seven ci-osses were planted in the rock on the top 
of tlie sacred hill of Gibeah; the hill which, though 
not Saul's native piace.^ 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 familiar 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 
eepulchre, and therefore his home, was situated. 

c "T^nS, 2 Sam. xxi. 6- 

d JWT^, has-Salc. 

f 1. /T2 ; apTrayrj, apirdyiiaTa : rapinee. 

2. p Jrr> '""o™ P'2^> " *>reak : " aSiKi'a : dila- 

3. "7127, from Tltt?, " waste : " oAeSpos : rapinez. 

4. ^7K7 : wpovoix-q- prceda: "prey," "spoil." 


(2.) Robber: — 

1. TTIS, part, from TT2, " rob : " jrpoi'ojieucoi' : 

2. V"^!?' P***- °^ V"D^> " *"**^ = " J^o'^ios : '«"■" : 
rfV!. H 13,'"break«p." 


(1 Sam. xi. 4, &c., and see Joseph. B. J. v. S, J 
1). The whole or part of this hiU seems at the 
time of this occun-ence to have been in some special 
manner <^ dedicated to Jehovah, possibly the spot 
on which Ahiah the priest had deposited the Ark 
when he took refuge in Gibeah during the I'hilis- 
tme 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 duluros'i, 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 oi)en spot all day, or from the drench- 
ing dews at night, but she spread on the rockj 
fioor the thick mourning garment of black sack- 
cloth <='^which as a widow she wore, and crouching 
there she watched that neither vulture nor jackal 
should molest the bodies. AVe may surely be justi- 
fied in applying to liizpah the words with which 
another act of womanly kindness was commended, 
and may say, that "wheresoever the Bilile shall go, 
there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be 
told for a memoi'ial 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 (t^K.'2) 
being elsewhere (e. </. ver. 8, xxiii. 27, xxx. 1, 14, 
&c.) rendered "invade" and "invasion." 

A 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. « 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 tlie nomad tribes of 
the East. From tlie 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 suc- 

3. C'^Ii £*, Job xviii. 9 : Sii/^oi/tc! : sitis. Targum, 
with A. v., has " robbers ; " but it is most commonlj 
rendered as LXX.. Job v 5, sitientes. 

4. "Tliy : ATjo-njs: lalro: from TTttJ, "waste." 

5. nptL'' : ixepo:;: deripiens: A. V. "spoiler." 

6. i32 : (cAeV-njs: fur: A. V. "thief." 
(3.) Rob : — 

1. TT2 : ii.apiTdi<a : depopulor. 

2. V*3 :'u) : violenter aiifero. 

3. ^•1y , " return," " repeat ; " hence in Pi< sur- 
round, circumvent (Ps. cxix. 61) : jrcpiTrAaK^i'ai : cir 
cumplecti ; usually affirm, reiterate assertions (Qea. p 

4. \^2p, " cover," " hide : " impvi^ta : affigo (Qe» 
p. 1190).' ^ 

5. nDC? : hia-pna^ui : diripio. 

6. DDtt' (same as last) : irpovofievto : AeptautM- 

7. 232 : (cAenriu : furor . A. V. ' steal." 


Kwfiilly. SO far from being esteemed disgraceful, is 
regarded as in tlae highest degree creditable (Gen. 
ivi 12; liurckiiardt, Notes on Btd. 1. 137, 157). 
An instance of an enterprise of a truly Bedouin 
jharacter, 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. II. VL. 
204, &c. Predatory inroads on a large scale are 
seen in the incursions of the Sabaeans and Cbal- 
daeans on the property of .Job {-lob i. 15, 17); the 
revenge coupled with plunder of Simeon and Levi 
((ien. xxxiv. 28, 29); the reprisals of the Hebrews 
upon the Midianites (Num. xxxi. 32-5-t), and the 
frequent and often prolonged invasions of "spoil- 
ers " upon the Israelites, together with their re- 
prisals, during the period of tlie Judges and ivings 
(.ludg. ii. 14, vi. 3, 4; 1 Sam. xi., xv. ; 2 Sam. 
viii., X.; 2 K. v. 2; 1 Cbr. v. 10, 18-22). Indi- 
vidual instances, indicating aii unsettled s^vte of 
the country during the same period, are seen in 
the " liers-in-wait " of the men of Shechem (-ludg. 
ix. 25), and the mountain retreats of David in the 
cave of Adullam, the hill of Machilah, and the 
wilderness of Maon, and liis abode in Ziklag, in- 
vaded and plundered in like manner l)y the Anialek- 
ites (1 Sam. xxii. 1, 2, xxiii. 10-25, xxvi. 1, xxvii. 
ti-lO, XXX. 1). 

Similar disorder in the country, complained of 
more than once by the prophets (Hos. iv. 2, vi. 9; 
Mic. ii. 8), continued more or less through Mac- 
caba;an down to Roman times, favored by the cor- 
rupt administration of some of the Kouian gover- 
nors, in accepting money in redemption of punish- 
ment, produced those formidable bands of robbers, 
so easily collected and with so much dithculty 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 
Jerusalem (Luke x. 30; Acts v. 36, 37, xxi. 38). 
[.)uu.\s i)K 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. B. J. iv. 2, § 1; 3, § 4; 

"' § ■^^• 

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

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

2. If the stolen animal was found alive the 
ihief 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 
vere stolen therefrom, the thief, when detected, was 
o pay double: but 

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

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

There seems no reason to suppose that the law 
underwent any alteration in Solomon's time, as 
Michaelis supposes; the expression in Prov. vi. 30, 
M, is, that a thief detected in stealing should restore 


sevenfold, i. e. to the full amount, and for this pur- 
pose, even give all the substance of his house, and 
thus in case of failure l)e liable to servitude (Mi- 
chaelis. Laws of Musts, § 284). On the other hand, 
see Bertheau on Prov. vi.; and Keil, Arcli. Ihbr 
§ 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 ('Poj3oa;u: Roboam), Ecclus. xlvii. 
23; Matt. i. 7. [Rehoboam.] 

ROE, ROEBUCK C'l??, izobi (m. ) ; n^*?f , 
Izebiyydh (f.): SopKds,S6pKaiv, SopKaSLoV- caprea, 
diimula). There seems to be little or no doubt 
that the Hebrew word, which occurs frequently iu 
the O. T., denotes some species of antelope, prob- 
ably the Gaztlln durcds, a native of Egypt and 
North Africa, or the G. Arabica of Syria and 
Arabia, which appears to be a variety only of the 
dorcds. 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 (t'ant. ii. 9, 17, viii. 14). The gazelle 
is found in Eirypt, Barbary, and Syria. vStanley, 
(S. (f- P. p. 207) says that the signification of the 
word Ajalon, the valley "of stags," is still justified 
liy " the gazelles which the peasants hunt on its 
mcjuntain slopes." Thomson (The Land and the 
Book, p. 172) says that the mountains of Naphtali 
•' abound in gazelles to this day." 

Gazella 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 l)ird upon the head of the 
animal so bewilder it that it tails 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"'b2""l [fuller's place, Ges.] . 
[Rom. "PoyiWipL-, Vat.] PcoyeAXei/i, and so Alex., 
though once PcoyeAei/u: Roijeliin). The residenc« 
of Barzillai the Gileadite (2 Sam. xvii. 27, xix. 31) 
in the highlands east of the Jordan. It is men- 



lioiied on this occasion only. Notliing is said to 
^uide us to its situation, and no name at all resem- 
bling it appears to have been hitherto discovered on 
tlie spot. 

if interpreted as Hebrew tlie name is derivable 
from rt(jtl, the foot, and signifies the " fullers " or 
''washers," who were in the habit (as they still 
are in the East) of using their feet to tread the 
cloth which they are cleansing. But this is ex- 
tremely uncertain. The same word occurs in the 
name Ex-eogel. <jr. 

ROH'GAH (narjin, CetMb, narjn, Kerl 
\outcrieiC\: "Pooya; Ales.. Ovpaoya- Hoaga). An 
Asherite, of the sons of Shamer (1 Chr. vii. 34). 

RO'IMUS {'Po'ifjios)- Ekhum 1 (1 Esdr. v. 8). 
The name is not traceable in the Vulgate. 

ROLL (n- yO: Ke<pa\is)- A book in ancient 
times consisted of a single long strip of paper or 
paj-chment, which was usually kept rolled up on a 
stick, and was unrolled when a person wished to 
read it. Hence arose the term megillah, from 
</(j/'i'/,« •' to roll," strictly answering to the Latin 
vulumcn, whence conies 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; 
lie. ii. 'J), 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 umlAltcMs of the Latins) at the top of the stick 
or cylinder round which the roll was wound. The 
use of the term meyiWih 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 w'as required for its de- 
struction (Jer. xxxvi. 2-3), we infer that it was 
parchment. The roll was usually written on one 
side only (JMishn. Krub. 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/M/H/iff or 
pillar. It has been asserted that the term meyilMi 
does not occur before the 7th cent. H. C, being 
first used l»y .Jeremiah (Hitzig, in. Jtr. xxxvi. 2); 
and the conclusion has been drawn that the use of 
such materials as parchment was not known until 
that period (Ewald, (Jescli. i. 71, note ; Gesen. 
T/i(S. p. 28U). 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 prol)able 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 (Dent. 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 


- T 

b In the Hebrew, W"^.^ (2 K. xix. 14) and b^; 

- T - T 

Ja. xzzir. 4) : iu the Greek, a.i>a7TTvcr<reiV and Trvuaireiv 
/Lnkeiv 17,20). 


out as it were, and decreed, which at \\u nldding 
would descend and sweep away the ungodly. Se« 
Keil, Die Kldnen Fropheten, p. 560 f. (1866 ). H 

* ROLLER (b^nn, from a verb = " to 
An!McZ ") = bandage, so called from its form as a 
roll, Ezek. xxx. 21. The prophet declares that the 
aim 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.? ''n7?)21-| : 

'Pcofj-iTdt-e^ep; [V'at. P(i)^€i, Po/xeAxeitoeO ^lex. 
Pccij.€/x6i-i^fp in 1 Chr. xxv. 4, but PwfjLfd-fxte^ef 
iu 1 Chr. xxv. 31 . Eomemthiczer). 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, Anier. ed.] 

* RO'MAN, RO'MANS (' Roma- 
nus), I Mace. viii. 1, 2-3-29, xii. 10, xiv. 40, xv. 16; 
2 Maec. viii. 10, 36, xi. 34; John xi. 48; Acts xvi. 
21, 37, 38, xxii. 25-29, xxiii. 27, xxv. 16, xjcviii. 17. 
[KojiAjj Ejipike, Rome.] 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 Actiuni, 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 centurj' 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 ISIacc. 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 Zania, b. c. 202, Roman arms 
and intrigues soon made themselves felt through- 
out Macedonia, Greece, and Asia Minor. About 
the year 161 b. c. Judas Maccabaeus heard of the 
Romans as the conquerors of Philip, Perseus, and 
Antiochus (1 iMacc. 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; .loseph. 
Ant. xii. 10, § 0, 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 

c rTin "^ (A. V. "leaves," Jer. xx.xvi. 23). Hit. 
T : 
zig maintains that the word means " leaves," and 
that the megiltaii in this case vftsa book like our own 
cousistiig of numerous pages. 


xiurse of the narrative mention is n.ade of the 
Roman senate {rh ^ou\fvTr\piov, 1 Mace. xii. 3), 
3i the consul Lucius (<) uTraros, 1 Mace. xv. 15, 
16). and the Roman constitution is described in a 
ioniewbat distorted form (1 Mace. viii. 14-16). 

The history of the Maccabaean and Idurasean 
dynasties forms no part of onr present subject. 
[.M.\ CCA bees; Hki;«)1>.J Here a brief summitry 
af the progress of Koman dominion in .Judaia will 

In the year G5 b. c, when Syria was rjiade a 
lioman province by Poujpey, the .lews were still 
governed by one of the .-Vsmoniean princes. Aristo- 
bulus iiad lately driven his brother liyrcanus from 
the ciiief priesthood, and was now in his turn at- 
tacked by Aretas, king of Arabia Petraja, the ally 
of Hyrcanus. Pompey's lieutenant, M. .lEmilius 
Scaurus, interfered in the contest b. c. G-l, and the 
next year Pompey himself marched an army into 
Judtea and took Jerusalem (Joseph. Aid. xiv. 2, 
3, 4; B. ./. i. 0, 7). From tliis 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- 
uian procurators. Julius Casar is said to have ex- 
Bcted from them a fourth ]iart of their agricul- 
tural produce in addition to the tithe paid to 
Hyrcanus (Ant. xiv. 10, § 6). Roman soldiers 
wei-e quartered at Jerusalem in Herod's time to 
su])i)ort him in his authority {Ant. xv. 3, § 7). 
'I'ribute 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, Judoea 
became a mere appendage of the province of 
Syria, and was governed by a Roman procurator, 
who resided at Csesarea. Galilee and the adjoining 
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 rehitions of the Jewish people to 
the Roman government at the time when the X. T. 
history begins. An ingenious illustration of this 
state of things has i)een drawn from the condition 
of Mritish India. The Go\ernor General at Cal- 
cutta, the subordinate governors at Madras and 
Bombay, and the native princes, whose dominions 
iiave lieen at one time enlarged, at another incorpo- 
rated with the British presidencies, find their re- 
spective counterparts in the governor of Syria at 
Aiitioch, the procurators of Judiea at Cassarea, and 
the members of Herod's family, whose dominions 
were altertiately enlarged and su]i]iressed by the 
Uoman emperors (Conybeare and I'lowson, Lift nf 
yt. Paul, i. 27). These and other characteristics of 
'oman rule come before us constantly in the N. T. 
Thus we hear of (_'a;sar the sole king (.lohn xix. l.i) 
— of (Jyrenins, "governor of Syria" (Lid^e ii. 2) 
-of Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus, the " gov- 
irnors,'' i. e. jirocunators, of Judfea — of the "te- 
rarchs " Herod, Philip, and Lysanias (Luke iii. 
I) — of "king Agrippa" (.Vets xrv. 13) — of Ro- 
man soldiers, lesjions, centurions, publicans — of the 
Iribute-money (Matt. xxii. 1!))— the taxing of 



" the whole world " (Luke ii. 1) — Italian and Au- 
gustan cohorts (.A.cts x. 1, xxvii. 1) — the .appeal 
to Cwsar (.\cts 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 alltiJed to under 
various titles, as Augustus (2ey3u(rT<$j) -^ud Ca?sar 
(Acts xxv. 10, 11. 21, 2.5: Phil, iv 22), as b kv- 
pio?, "my lord'' (.A.cts xxv. 20), and apparently 
in other passages (1 Pet. ii. 17; Rom. xiii. 1). 
Several notices of the provincial administration of 
tile Romans and the condition of provincial cities 
occur in the narrative of St. Paul's journeys (Acts 
xiii. 7, .xvi. 12. .3.5, 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 admiu 
istration of the provinces in the time of our Lord 
and his Apostles. Fuller information will be found 
under special articles. 

I. \\'^hen Augustus became sole ruler of the Ra- 
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. Anil. 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 commoidy bore tlie chief official titles, Au- 
gustus had the supreme control of e\ery department 
of the state. Above all he was the Emperor (Im- 
perator). This word, used originally to designate 
any one entrusted with the imperium, or full mili- 
tary authority o\er a Roman army, acquired a new 
significance when adopted as a permanent title by 
Julius Civsar. By his use of it as a constant pre- 
fix to his name in the city and in the camp he 
openly asserted a jwramount military authority over 
the state. Augustus, by resuming it, plainly indi- 
cated, in spite of much artful concealment, the real 
basis on wliich his power rested, namely, the sup ■ 
port of the army (.^lerivale, Roman Empire, vol. 
iii.). In the N. T. the emperor is commonly des- 
ignated by the family name " C*sar," or the dig- 
nified and almost sacred title " Augustus " (for its 
meaning, comp. Ovid, Fnsli, i. 009). Tiberius is 
called by implication riyifxdv 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, Rom. Emjnre, iii. 452, and nott) or 
any other avowedly despotic appellatioii. The use 
of the word o Kvpws, doinimts, " my lord," in Actg 
xxv. 26, marks the progress of Roman servility be- 
tween the time of Augustus and Nero. Augustus 
and Tiberius refused this title. Caligtda first bore 
it (see Alford's note in I. c. ; Ovid, Fast. ii. 142). 
The term ffaffiAevs, " king," in Joh-n xix. 15, 1 
Pet. ii. 17, cannot be closely pressed. 

The Empire was nominally elective (Tac. An7t. 
xiii. 4); but practically it passed by adoption (see 
(Jalba'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 ((iibbon, ch. iii. 
p. 80: but oiitljreaks of military violence were nol 
wanting in this earlier period (comp. Weuck's not* 



Dn (Jilibon, I. c). The army was sjstematically 
bribed by doiiati\es at the commencement of each 
reifrn, and the njob of the capital continually fed 
and amused at the expense of the provinces. \V^e 
ire reminded of the insolence and avarice of the 
soldiers in Luke iii. 14. The reigns of Caligula, 
Nero, and Domitian show that an emperor might 
shed the noblest blood with impunity, so Ion;; as 
he alistained from offending the soldiery and the 

n. Extent of the Empire. — Cicero's description 
of the Greek states and colonies as a "fringe on the 
skirts of barbarism " (Cio. De Rep. ii 4) has been 
well applied to the Roman dominions before the 
conquests of Pompey and Csesar (Merivale, Rum. 
l-.inpire, iv. 409). The Roman Empire was still 
Confined to a narrow strip encircling the Mediter- 
ranean Sea. Ponipey added Asia Minor and Syria. 
C;esar added Gaul. The generals of Augustus over- 
ran the X. 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 El., 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 
sulisequent 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 
Augu.stus has been calculated at 8.5,000,000 (^fcri- 
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 { CeS'irs, ii. 428). All these 
estimates are confessedly somewhat uncertain and 

This large population was controlled in the time 
of Tilierius by an army of 25 legions, exclusive of 
the pra;toriaii guards and other cohorts in the 
capital. ' The soldiers who composed the legions 
may be reckoned in round numbers at 170.000 
men. If we add to these an equal numlier of aux- 
iliaries (Tac. Ann. iv. 5) we have a total force of 
■340.000 men. 'i"he prsetorian 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. P"or 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 Cen'irs, ii. 42U; 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 
handa" (Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1) see Akmy, vol. i. p. 
164 [and It.vlian Band, Amer. ed.]. 

III. Tlie Provinces.. — The usual fate of a coun- 
try conquered by Rome was to liecome a .subject 
pro\i nee, governed directly from Rome by officers 
lent out for that purpose. Sometimes, however, 
AS we have seen, petty sovereigns were left in pos- 
(ession of a nominal independence on the borders, 
Dr within the natural limits, of the province. Such 

« ♦ On this subject one may consult C. G. Zunipfs 
Ueber den Stand der BeviJlkeruns u. d't Volksvrmeh- 
ung im Alt'rthun', fob pp. 1-92 (Berb 1841). H. 


a system was useful for rewarding an ally, for tm- 
ploying a busy ruler, for gradually accustoming a 
stubborn people to the yoke of dependence. There 
were differences too in the political condition »f 
cities within the provinces. Some were free cities, 
i. c, 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, Tbessalonica. See the notices ol 
the " Politarchs " and " Demos " at Tbessalonica, 
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 
inhaliitants were for the most part Romans (Acts 
x^'i. 21), and their magistrates delighted in the Ro- 
man title of Prsetor (<TrpaTTfy6s), and in the at- 
tendance of lictors (pa^Sovxoi), Acts xvi. 35. (C. 
and H. i. 315.) 

Augustus divided the provinces into two classes, 
(1) Imperial, (2) Senatorial; retaining in his own 
hands, for obvious reasons, those provinces where 
the presence of a large military force was neces- 
sary, and committing the peaceful and unarmed 
provinces to the Senate. The Imperial provinces 
at first. were — Gaul, Lusitania, Syria, Phoenicia, 
Cilieia, Cyprus, and .(Egypt. The Senatorial prov- 
inces were Africa, Numidia, Asia, Achsea and 
Epirus, Dalmatia, Macedonia, Sicily, Crete and 
Cyrene, Bithynia and Pontus, Sardinia, Bsetica 
(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 afdvira- 
Tot, proconsuls (Acts xiii. 7, xviii. 12, xix. 38). 
[Cyi'HUS.] I"or the governor of an Imperial prov- 
ince, properly stjled " Legatus Casaris " (Trpecr- 
^eurri^), the word rj-yefiwy (Governor) is used in 
the N. T. 

The provinces were heavily taxed for the benefit 
of Rome and her citizens. " It was a-s 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.) 
F'rom customs, tolls, harlior duties, etc. The agra- 
rian law of Julius Csesar is said to have extin- 
guished the first source of revenue (Cic. nd Ait. u. 
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. yEinil. Paul. 38), except in extraordinary 
emergencies. The main part of the Roman revenue 
was now drawn from the provinces by a direct tax 
{Krtvffos, (p6pos, Matt. xxii. 17, Luke xx. 22), 
amounting probably to from 5 to 7 per cent, on the 
estimated produce of the soil (Dureau de la Malle, 
ii. 418). The indirect taxes too (reArj, vectignlia, 
Matt. xvii. 25; Dureau de la Malle, ii. 449) appear 
to have been very heavy {Ibid. ii. 433, 448). -Au- 
gustus on coming to the empire found the regular 
sources of revenue impaired, while his expense* 
must have been very great. To say nothing of th« 


pay of the army, he is waid to have supported no 
less than 200,000 citizens in idleness by the miser- 
able system of public gratuities. Hence the neces- 
sity of a careful valuation of the property of the 
wliole empire, which appears to have been made 
more than once in his reign. [Census.] For the 
historical difficulty about the taxing in Luke ii. 1, 
see Cy REM I us. Augustus appears to have raised 
both the direct and indirect taxes (Uureau de la 
Malle, ii. i'i'-i, 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 Sanate (L'ac. Ann. i. 70, iv. 6; Dion, liii. 
14). Two important changes were introduced un- 
der the Empire. The governors received a fixed 
pay, and the terra of their command was prolonged 
(.Joseph. Ant. 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 fportitores). 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 imperial government. It is 
not likely that such rulers as Caligula and Nero 
would lie scrupulous about the means used for re- 
plenishing tlieir treasury. The stories related even 
of the reign of Augustus show how slight were 
the checks on the tyranny of provincial governors. 
See the story of Liciims in Gaul ( Diet, of (Jr. and 
Rum. Biiif/. sub voce), and that of the Dalmatian 
chief (Dion, Iv.). The sufferings of St. Paul, pro- 
tected as he was to a certain extent by his Koman 
citizenship, show plainly how little a provincial had 
to hope from the justice of a Roman governor. 

It is iuipossible here to discuss the difficult ques- 
tion relating to Roman provincial go-vernment 
raised on John xviii. 31. It may be sufficient here 
to state, that according to strict Roman law the 
■lews 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. 11.3. 

The condition of the Roman Empire at the time 
when (jhristianity appeared has often been dwelt 
upon, as affording 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 mar«h of the legions, the 
voyages of the corn fleets, the general increase of 
iraffic, 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 Emiiire to reduce all its subjects to 
« dead level, was a powerful instrument in breaking 
jown the pride of privileged nites and national 
religions, and familiarizing men with the truth that 
' God hath made of one blood all nations on the 
ace of the earth" (Acts xvii. 24, 26). But still 
nore striking than this outward preparation for the 
li£fusion of the Gospel was the appearance of a deep 



and wide-spread corruption which seemed to defj 
any human remedy. It would be easy to accumu- 
late proofs of the moral and political degradation 
of the Romatis 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 period 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, 
uiuty, and reviving prosperity, the general condi- 
tion of the people must have been one of great 
misery. To say nothing of the fact that probably 
one-half of the population consisted of slaves, the 
great inequality of wealth at a time when a whole 
province cou'.d be owned by six landowners, the 
absence of any middle class, the utter want of any 
institutions for alleviating distress such as are found 
in all Christian countries, the inhuman tone of 
feeling and practice generally prevailing, forbid U3 
to think favorably of the happiness of the world 
in the fan)ous Augustan age. We must remember 
that " theie 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 " (.\rnold's Later Roman 
Commonwealth, ii. 308). If we add to this that 
there was probably not a single religion, except the 
Jewish, which was felt by the more enlightened 
part of its professors to be real, we may form some 
notion of the world which Christianity had to 
reform and purify. We venture to 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 corru])ted 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 giving dignity to minds pros- 
trated by years, almost centuries, of degrading 
despotism ; it was nurturing purity and modasty 
of manners in an unspeakable state of depravation ; 
it was enshrining the marriage-bed in a sanctity 
long almost entirely lost, and rekindhng to a steady 
warmth the domestic affections ; it was substituting 
a simple, calm, and rational faith for the worn-oui 
I 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 Lj ch. 
xi. 30-40, and in ii. 40, vii. 7, 17-10, according to 
the common interpretation of the " fourth king- 
dom; " comp. 2 Esdr. xi. 1. but see Daniel. Ao- 


cording to some interpreters the Romans are in- 
tended in Deut. xxviii. 49-57. For the mystical 
notices of Kome in the lieveLition comp. Home. 

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

1. The diilt of this epistle is fixed with more ab- 
solute certainty and within narrower limits, than 
that of any oilier 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 
Bent. (1.) I'hoebe, a deaconess of Cenchpepe, one 
of the port towns of Corinth, is commended to the 
Romans (xvi. 1, 2). (2.) (iaius, in whose house 
St. Paul was lodged at the time (xvi. i'-i), 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. {'■}.) Krastus, 
here designated "the treasurer of the city " (oIko- 
vofios, xvi. 23, E. V. "chamberlain") is elsewhere 
mentioned in connection with Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 
20; see also Acts xix. 22). Secom/ly. Havinc; thus 
determined the place of writing to be Corinth, we 
have no hesitation in fixing upon the visit recorded 
in Acts XX. '-J, 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. I'aul, when he wrote the letter, was on the 
point of carrying tlie 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 
BO engaged at this period of his hfe. (See I'ak-y's 
Hoite Paulines., 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 
ffas 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 caimot have been 
late in the sprin<j, 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 Romany was written. According to the 
most probable system of chronology, adopted by 
Anger and Wieseler, this would be the year a. d. 

2. The Epistle to the Romans is thus placed in 
chronological connection with the epistles to the 
Galatianss and Corinthians, which appear to have 
been written within the twelve montlis preceding. 
The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written 
oefore 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 arri^■al at Corinth, i. e. 
ifter the epistles to the Corinthians, though the 


contemporaneous epistles hereafter. At present it 
will be sufficient to say that they present a remark- 
able resemblance to each other in style and matter 
— a much greater r&seniblance 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 sweepinu; con- 
demnation of the genuineness of all the letters 
bearing St. Paul's name {Paztlus, ihr Apostel) this 
is a mere caricature of sober criticism : but under- 
l^ing 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. l'"or the special 
characteristics of this group of epistles, see a paper 
on the Epistle to the Galatians in the Journal of 
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, howe\er, he was prevented from car- 
rying out his design, as he was boimd 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 Cencbre<e, 
was on the point of starting for Rome (xvi. 1, 2), 
and probably conve3'ed the letter. The liody of the 
epistle was written at the Apostle's dictation by 
Tertius (xvi. 22): but jjerhaps we may infer from 
the abruptness of the final doxology, that it was 
added i)y 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 orif/in of the Roman Church is involved 
in oliscurity. 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 ride not to build on another man's 
foundation (xv. 20), and we cannot suppose that 
he violated it in this instance. Again, he speaks 
of the Romans as especially falling to his share as 
the .-Vpostle'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 (xapiaixa) 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 
Philip in Samaria (Acts viii. 14-17). 

The statement in the ClenientiVies {Horn. i. § 6) 
that the first tidings of the (iospel reached Romp 

date of the'Galatian Epistle is not absolutely cer- j during the lifetime of our Lord, is evidently a 
tain. [Gai.ati.\ns, ErisTi.E TO THE.] AVe shall fiction for the purposes of the romance. On the 
biave to notice the relations existing between these I other hand, it is clear that the foundation of thii 


cliurch dates very far back. St. Paul in this 
epistle salutes certain believers resident in Home — 
Andruiiicus 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 sueli seems to be the niea)iing of 
the passage, rendered somewhat ambiguous by tlie 
position of the relative pronouns. It may be that 
some of those Romans, ''both Jews and proselytes," 
present on the day of Pentecost (ol i7rtSri/j.ovuTts 
'Pwfidioi, 'lov8aioi re Kal trpoaiiKvroi, Acts ii. 
10), carried back the earliest tidings of the new 
doctrine, or the Gospel may have first reached the 
imperial city througli those who were scattered 
al)i oad 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 Kome and 
tlieir fellow-countrymen in Palestine by the exigen- 
cies of conmierce, in which they became more and 
more engrossed, as their national hopes declined, 
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. g. in the case of Claudius, 
Joseph. Ant. xix. 5, § 3, with Suet. Claud, c. 25) 
must have kept up a constant eblj and flow of 
migration between Rome and the East, and the 
case of Aquila and Priacilla (.Acts xviii. 2; see 
Paley, Ilor. 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 Kphesus (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 dispersed the mists of Judaism 
which still hung about the Roman Church. Long 
after Ciiristianity had taken up a position of direct 
antagonism to Judaism in Rome, heathen states- 
ir'^n and writers still persisted in confounding the 
oi.c? with the other. (See Merivale, Hist, of Jiome, 
vi. 278, &c.) 

5. A question next arises as to the composition 
of the Riiimtn Cliurch, 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 wi'iting to 
Jewish Christians, Olshausen arguing that the Ro- 
man Church consisted almost solely of Gentiles. 
We are naturally led to seek the truth in some in- 
termediate position. Jowett finds a solution of the 
difficulty in tiie supposition that the members of 
the Roman Church, though Gentiles, had passed 
through a phase of .lewish 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 uA 
assumed merely for argumentative purposes, but 
applies to a portion at least of those into whose 


hands the letter would fall. The constant app>ala 
to the authority of " the Law " may in many c.wea 
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. I'J, vii. 1). In the 
7th chapter St. Paul appears to be addressing Jews, 
as those who like himself had once been under the 
dominion of the Law, but had been delivered from 
it in Christ (see especially verses 4 and G). 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 Wary, 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 PrisciUa (ver. 
3) were Jews (Acts xviii. 2, 20), and the church 
whicii 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 connnonly borne by 
.lews, as appears from Horace, Snt. I. v. 100. If 
the Aristoliulus 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. .Altoi^ether 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 vi'e know nothing, were heathens. 

Nor does tiie existence of a large Jewish ele- 
ment in the Roman Church present any difficulty. 
The captives carried to Rome by Ponijjeius formed 
the nucleus of the Jewish population in the metropo- 
lis [Romk]. Since that time they had largely in- 
creased. During the reign of Auicustus we hear 
of above 8,000 resident Jews attachin;j; themselves 
to a Jewish embassy vviiich appealed to this emiieror 
(Joseph. A7it. xvii. 11, § 1). The same emperor 
uave them a quarter beyond the Tiber, and allowed 
tliem the free exercise of their religion (Philo, Lee;, 
ad Caium, p. 568 M.). About the time wlien St. 
Paul wrote, Seneca, .speaking of the influence of 
Judaism, echoes the famous expression of Horace 
(A'/j. ii. 1, 156) respecting the Greeks — " victi vic- 
tor'ibus leges dederunt " (Seneca, in A«gustin, 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 Gen- 
tile Church; and the language of the epistle bears 
out this sup]X)sition. It is professedly as the Apos 
tie of the Gentiles that St. Paul writes to the Ro- 
mans (i. 5). He hoi)es to have some fruit aniong 
them, as he had among tlie other (ientiles (i. 13). 
Later on in the epistle he speaks of the .lews in the 
third person, as if addressing Gentiles, '• I could 
wish that myself were accursed for my l)rethren'. 


my kinsmeu after the flesh, who are Israelites, etc." 
(ix. 3, 4). And again, ''my heart's desire and 
prayer to God for tlivin is that they might be 
saved " (x. 1, the right reading is virlp ainwv, 
not virep Toxi '\apa))\ as in the Keeeived Text). 
Compare also xi. 2-'i, 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 Romans. 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, liut of the provinces, 
especially Africa (Westcott, Canon, p. 209). AU 
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 
these facts we find that a very large proportion of 
the names in the salutations of this epistle are 
Greek names; while of the exceptions, I'riscilla, 
Aquila, and Junia (or .lunias), were certainly Jews; 
and the same is true of Rufus, if, as is not iniproti- 
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 Aniplias (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 he 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 Omt. 29). They com- 
plain that the national character is undermined, 
that the whole city has become Greek. Speaking 
tlie 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^SQ1~l). Every line in the epistle bespeaks 
an original. 

When we inquire into the probable rank and 
station of the Roman believers, an analysis of the 
tiames in the list of salutations aijaiu gives an ap- 
proximate answer. These names belong for the 
most part to the middle and lower grades of society. 
Many of them are foiuid in the columbaria of the 
freedmen and slaves of the early Roman emperors. 
vSee Journal of Class, and Hacr. 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, 
" tiiey that are of Cesar's iiousehold." 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. 20). 

It seems probable from what has been said above, 
that tlie Roman Church at this time was composed 
of .lews and Gentiles in nearly equal portions. 
'This fact finds expression in the account, whether 
true or false, which represents St. Peter and St. 
Raid as presiding at the same time over the Church 
at Rome (Uionys. 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 Theul. WorLt, ii. 449; Bun- 
sen, Ilippiih/tiis, 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. 

G. The heterogeneous composition of this church 
explains the general character of' the J'jnsile to the 
Romans. In an assemblage so various, we should 
expect to find not the exclusive predominance of a 
single form of error, but the coincidence of dif- 
ferent and opposing forms. The Gospel had here 
to contend not specially with Judaism nor specially 
with lieathenism, but with both together. It was 
therefore the business of the Christian Teacher to 
reconcile the opposing difficulties and to hold out 
a meeting point in the Gospel. This is exactly 
what St. Paul does in the Epistle to the Romans, 
and what from the circumstances of the case he -as 
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 
ex])osition 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 fitCest 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 
chursh of the metropolis. The injunction ol 


)betlience to temporal rulers (xiii. 1) would most 
atly be addressed to a congregation brought face 
to face with tlie imperial government, and the 
more so, as Rome had receiitl)' been the scene of 
frequtiit disturbances, on the part of either .lews or 
Christians, arising out of a feverish and restless an- 
ticiixition of Messiah's coming (Suet. Clmid. 25). 
Other apparent exceptions admit of a different ex- 

7. This explanation is in fact to be sought in its 
reiition to the contemporaneous epistles. The 
letter to the Komans closes the group of epistles 
written during the third 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 tlie 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 Komans 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 pai'tial application, is 
here arranged and completed, and thrown into a 
general form. Thus on the one hand his treat- 
ment of the JMosaic 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 (Rom. xiv. ), remind us of the 
errors which he had to correct in his Corinthian 
converts. (Compare 1 Cor. vi. 12 ff., and 1 Cor. 
viii. 1 ff. ) Those injunctions th«n which seem at 
tirst 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- 
reirularities 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 
exi)lain 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 
eh. 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 
diocedit the genuineness of tlie 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 
liy 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 sol>er 
triticism. The phenomena of the jMSS. seem best 
Explained by supposing that the letter was circu- 
i»ted at au early date (whether during tlie Apostle's 
tifetirae or not it is idle to inquire) iu 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 especiallv 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 iv 'PdcfxTf 
(i. 7), and to?? eV 'Pd/xr) (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 jiarallel 
case of the opening of the Ephesian Epistle, in 
which there is very high authority for omitting 
the words iu 'Ecpfacij, and which bears strong 
marks of having been intended for a circular 

'J. 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 sah ation 
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 taith "' (i. 16, 17). 
Accordingly the epistle has been described as com- 
prising " the religious philosophy of the world's 
history." The w'orld 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 ejjistle, from its general character, lends 
itself more readily to an nntdijsis than is often the 
case with St. Paul's epistles. The body of the 
letter consists of four portions, of which the first 
and last relate to personal matters, the second is 
argumentative and doctrinal, and the third 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 '■'■culled as an apostle," ^'called as saints." 
Divine grace is everything, human merit nothing. 

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

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

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

The rest of this section is 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. 1-20). 
Objections to this statement answered (iil. 

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

(6.) A righteousness (justification) is revealed 
under the gospel, which being of faith, not 
of law, is also universal (iii. 21-26). 

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

Of 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). 

Aud this acceptance iu Christ is as unl- 


versal as was the condemnation in Adam 
(v. 12-19). 
(c.) The moral consequences of our deliver- 
The Law was given to multiply sin (v. 20, 
21). When we died to the Law we died to 
sin (vi. 1-14). The abohtion of the Law, 
however, is not a signal for moral license 
(vi. 15-23). On the contrary, as the Law 
has passed away, so must sin, for sin and 
the Law are correlative; at the same time 
this is no disparagement of the Law, but 
rather a proof of human weakness (vii. 
1-25). So henceforth in Christ we are free 
from sin, we have the Spirit and look for- 
ward in hope, triumphing over our present 
afflictions (viii. 1-39). 
(d) The rejection oj' 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). 
( i. ) That the Jews did not seek justification 
aright, and so missed it. This justifica- 
tion was promised by Jaitli, 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). 
(6.) And more particul.arly against giving 
oflTense to weaker brethren (xiv. 1-xv. 13). 
IV. Personal matters. 

(n.) The Apostle's motive in writing the 
letter, and his intention of visiting the 
P>omans (xv. 14-33). 
(b.) Greetings (xvi. 1-23). 
The letter ends with a benediction and doxology 

(xvi. 24-27). 
AVhite this epistle contains the fullest and most 
jystematic exposition of the Apostle's tedchiny, it 
is at the same time a very striking expression of 
his chi'riiclcr. Nowhere do his earnest and afTec- 
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 Romans. 

10. Internal evidence is so strongly in favor of 
the (/enidneness of the Epistle to the Romans that 
• it has never been seriously questioned. Even the 
Rweeping criticism of Baur did not go beyond 
sondemning the two last chapters as spurious. 
But while the epistle bears in itself the strongest 
oroofs of its Pauline autlmrship, the external testi- 
oioiny in its fivor 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 Apostle, 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. 
Cor. c. XXXV., and Rom. xiv. 10, 12, in Polyc. 
Phil. c. vi.). It seems also to have been directly 
cited by the elder quoted in Irenaeus (iv. 27, 2, 
"ideo Paulum dixisse;" cf. Rom. xi. 21, 17), and 
is alluded to by the writer of the Epistle to 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 Hem-ing 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 Ophites 
(Hippol. adv. Hair. p. 99, cf. Rom. i. 20-26), by 
Basilides {ib. p. 238, cf. Rom. viii. 19, 22, and v. 
13, 14), by Valentinus (//;. p. 195, cf. Rom. viii. 
11), by the Valentinians Heracleon and Ptolemseus 
(^\^estcott, On the Canon, pp. 335, 340), and per- 
haps also by Tatian {Oral. 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 
Lyns (Euseb. //. A", 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 
Irena;us, TertuUian, and Clement of Alexandria (see 
Kirchhofer, Que/len, 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 preseiTed 
entire only in a loose Latin translation of Rufinus 
(Orifj. 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. 
Amlirose (ed. Ben. ii. Appx. p. 21), and hence 
bearing the name Ambrosiaster, is probably to lie 
attriliuted 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 (Maf/n. Bibl. Vet. Patr. vi. Pt. 2, p. 30), and 
by Theodoret (ed. Schulze, iii. p. 1). Augustine 
conuDenced a work, but broke oflf at i. 4: it 
bears the name Inchoaiu Expositio Epistolce ad 
Rom. (ed. Ben. iii. p. 925). Later he wrote Ex- 
positio quarvndani Propositionum Epistolce ad 
Rum., also extant (ed. lien. iii. p. 903). To these 
should be added the later Catena of CEcunieiiius 
(lOtli cent.) and the notes of Theophylact (11th 
cent.), the former containing valuable extracts 
from Photius. Portions of a commentary cf Cyril 
of Alexandria were published by Mai {Nov. Pair 


Bibl. iii. p. !)• The Catena edited by Cramer 
11844) comprises two collections of Variorimi notes, 
ihe one extending from i. 1 to ix. 1, tlie other from 
m. 7, to the end. Besides passages from extant 
;onimentaries, they contain important extracts from 
Apollinarius, Theodoriis of Mopsuestia [ed. Fritz- 
sche, 1847; Migne, Patrol. Gr. Ixvi.], :Severianus, 
Gennadius, Photius, and others. Tliere are also the 
Greek Scholia, edited by Mattliiii, in liis large Greek 
Test. (Kiga, 1782), from Moscow iMSS. The com- 
mentary of Euthymius Zigabenus (Tholuck, Junl. 
§ 6) exists in MS., but has never been printed. 

Of tlie 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. Tlieol. iv. 679). The Commentary 
of Calvin on the Romans is considered the ablest 
part of his able work. Among Roman Catholic 
writers, the older works of Estius and Corn, a 
Lapide deserve to be mentioned. Of foreign an- 
notators of a more recent date, besides the general 
commentaries of Bengel, Olshausen, De Wette, and 
Meyer (.3d ed. 1859 [4th ed. 18ii5] ), which are highly 
valuable aids to the study of this epistle, we may 
single out the special works of Kiickert y2A ed. 18-39), 
Keiche (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. 1801) 
and Wordsworth (new ed. 1861), the most impor- 
tant annotations on the Epistle to the Romans are 
those of Stuart (6th ed. 1857), .Jowett (^d ed. 
1859), and Vaughan (2d ed. 1801). 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 Literatiu-e. — On the composition of 
the Roman Church and the aim of the epistle 
valuable essays have been lately published by W. 
Mangold, Der Rijinerbnef u. die Anfcwge d. roin. 
Gemeinde, Marb. 1860, and W. Beyschlag, Das 
geschiclitliciie Problem des Rdmerbriefs, in the 
Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1867, pp. 627-665; comp. 
Hilgenfeld, Die Paulus-Briefe u. ihre netiesten 
Bearbeitungen, in his Zeitschr. f. miss. Theol. 
1866, ix. 293-316, 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 iiy Prof Lightfoot (the 
author of the preceding article) in the Jourwd of 
Philology, 1869, vol. ii. pp. 264-295. His ovvn 
hypothesis is, that the epistle as originally written 
was without the benediction xvi. 24 (omitted by 
Lachm., Tisch., and Tregelles 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 eV 
xydirr] deov for eV "Pwfxr) in i. 7, and omitting 4v 
P(i>ixr) in i. 15 — for the traces of this in MSS., 
;tc., see Tisch.] ; and he cut otf the two last chap- 
ters containing personal mntters. • adding at the 
».rae time a doxoldgy [xvi. 2.")- 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, atij' d 
Gruiule des A. T. ausgelegt, Gotha, 1856 ; Ewald, 
Die Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus Uhers. u. er- 
kliirt, Gcitt 1857; John Brown ("Prof, of Exeget. 
Theol. to the United Presbyterian Chiu'ch"), Ana^ 
lytical Exposition of the Ep. to the Romans, Edin., 
also N. Y., 1857; John Forbes, Anabjt. Comm. or. 
tlie 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, 2o Aufl. 1808 
(Theil vi. of his Biheliceric), greatly enlarged and 
enriched by Dr. Schaff and the Rev. M. B. Riddle, 
in the Amer. translation, N. Y. 1809 (vol. v. of 
Lange's Comm.); and J C. K. von Hofmaim, Der 
Brief Pauli an die Romer, Niirdlingen, 1868 
(Theil iii. of his Die heil. Schrifl d. N. T. zusain- 
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- 
palian), 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., Bed. 1808, pp. 216~.5()7. 
Rom. V. 12-19 is discussed by Prof. Timothy Dwight 
in the Neiu Englander for July, 1808, with partic- 
ular reference to the Commentary of Dr. Hodge. 

For a fuller view cf the very extensive literature 
relating to the epistie, see the .\merican translation 
of Lange's Commentary as above referred to, p. 
48 IF. ; 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 ('Pco/iTj, Ethn. and Adj. 'Pw/j.a7os, 'Pto- 
fiatKSs in the phrase 'PccfiaiKd, 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. xvii. 
9) which formed the nucleus of the ancient city 
stand on the left bank. On the opposite side of the 
river rises the far higher ridge of the Janiculum. 
Here from very early times was a fortress with a 
suburb beneath it extending to the river. Modern 
Rome Ues 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 JNIartius, 
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 lu 
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 th» 



notices of Rome in the books of Maccabees see Ro- 
MAX I'Zmpire. 

The conquests of Pompey seem to have given 
rise to the first settlement of Jews at Rome. The 
Jewish king Aristobiilus and liis 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 
Bite of the modern " Ghetto," between the Capitol 
and the island of the Tiber, but across the Tiber 
(Pliilo, Leg. ad Qdum, ii. 5G8, ed. Mangey). 
Many of these Jews were made freedmen (Philo, 
I. c). Julius Cjesar showed them some kindness 
(.loseph. Ant. xiv. 10, §8; Suet. Qesm; Si). 
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. 30). Claudius "com- 
manded all Jews to depart from Rome " (Acts 
xviii. 2), on account of tumults connected, pos- 
Blbly. with the preaching of Christianity at Rome 
(Suet. I'tiiud. 25, "Judaios impulsore Chre.sto 
assidue tinnultuantes Roma expuht"). This ban- 
ishment cannot have been of long duration, for 
we find Jews residing at Rome apparently in con- 
siderable numliers at the time of St. Paul's visit 
(Acts xxviii. 17). It is chiefly in connection with 
St. Paul's history that Rome comes 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. 25). 

1. The city at that time must be imagined as a 
large and irregular mass of buildings unprotected 
by an outei- wall. It had long outgrown the old 
Servian wall (Dionys. Hal. Ant. Horn. iv. 13; ap. 
Merivale, Horn. Hist. iv. 497); but the limits of 
the suburbs cannot be exactly defined. Neither 
the nature of the buildings nor the confiicuration 
of the ground were such as to give a striking ap- 
pearance to the city viewed from without. " An- 
cient Rome had neither cupola nor campanile " 
(Conybeare and Howson, Life of St. Paul, ii. 371 ; 
Merivale, Rom. Kinp. iv. 512), and the hiUs, never 
lofty or imposing, would present, when covered with 
the liuildings and streets of a huge city, a confused 
appearance like tiie 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. 
i. 13). The boast of Augustus is well known, 
" that he had found the city of brick and left it of 
marble" (Suet. Aiuj. 28). For the improvements 
eftected by him, see Did. 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 
maijnificent appearance, but many of the principal 
buihlings which attract the attention of modern 
travellers in ancient Rome were not yet built. The 
streets were generally narrow and winding, flanked 
by densely crowded lodging-houses (insidae) of enor- 
ijnous height. Augustus found it necessary to 
|niit their height to 70 feet (Strab. v. 235). St. 
raul's first visit to Rome took place before the 
Neronian conflagration, but even after the restora- 
, ,ion of 'Jie city, which followed upon that event, 
(uany of the old evils continued (Tac. [list. iii. 71; 


Juv. Sat. iii. 193, 269). The population of (he 
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 niilhons and up- 
wards (Hoeck, Rbiiiisclie Gesvliichte, I. ii. 131; C. 
and H. Lift of St. Paul, ii. 376 ; Diet, of Geogr. 
ii. 746), even at eight miOions (Lipsius, De Mag- 
niludine 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 comparativelj' small body 
of the wealthy nobility, of whose luxury and profli- 
gacy we hear so nuich 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. P.p. v.; Acts xii. 6, 
quoted by Brotier, od Tac, Ann. iii. 22), he was 
bound with a chain (Acts xxviii. 20; Eph. vi. 20; 
Phil. 1. 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 suflfered 
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 Fokuji, and Diet, of 
Geogr. "Via Appia.") (2.) "The palace," or 
"Caesar's court" (rb irpairccpLov, 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. Anji. 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- 
iifiiate the emperor's palace, though it is used for 
the oftieial 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 ; Pk.eto- 


3. The connection of other localities at Rome 
with St. Paul's name rests only on traditions of 
more or less proliability. We may mention esp& 
cially — (1.) The Mamertine prison or Tulliaiium 
built by Aneus Martins near the forun (Liv. i. 33 


iescrilied by tx.Uust {Cat. 55). It still exists be- 
neatli the church of S. Giuseppe cki Faleiimuni. 
Here it is said that St. Peter and St. Paul were 
fellow-prisouers for nine tuonths. This is not the 
place to discuss the question whevher St. Peter was 
ever at Rome. It may he sufficient to state, that 
though there is no evidence of such a visit in the 
N. T., unless Babylon in 1 Pet. v. 1-3 is a mystical 
name for Rome, yet early testimony (Diony.sius, "p. 
Euseb. ii. 2.3), and the universal belief of the early 
Church seem sutHcient to establish the fact of his 
having suftered martyrdom there. [Peter, \o1. ill. 
p. 2454.] The story, however, of the imprison- 
ment ill the ]\Iamertine 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 Si. 
Paolo alle tre fontane on the Ostian road. (See 
the notice of the Ostian road in Caius, ap. luis. //. 
E. ii. 25.) To these may be added (4.) The sup- 
posed scene of St. Peter's martyrdom, namely, the 
church of St. Pittru in JMontorio, on the Janicu- 
lum. (5.) The chapel " Domine quo Vadis," on 
the Appian road, the scene of the beautiful legend 
of our Lord's appearance to St. Peter as he was 
esc.iping from martyrdom (Ambrose, Ep. 3-3). (6.) 
The places where the bodies of the two Apostles, 
after having been deposited first in the catacombs 
{KOLfj.r]Tr)pia) (Kus. //. E. ii. 25), are supposed to 
have been tinally 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, up. Ku3. //. 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 collecti\'ely they are of 
some importance as expressiuLC 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 Rome itself" (Stanley's >Sej'/«o«5 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 lieasts 
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. 
Ami. XV. 44). (2.) The Catacombs. These sub- 
terranean galleries, commonly from 8 to 10 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 
used as places of refuge, of worship, and of burial 
by the early Christians. It is impossible here to 
inter upon the difficult question of their origin. 

o 1. "Ai-Ti (Matt. ii. 22). 

2. Xiapslv (Mark ii. 2). 

3. Trin-os (Luke ii. 7, xiv. 22 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 16). 

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

be printed in italics). 
5. Au'.^oxffs ('■ f. a succesaoT, Acts xxiv. 27 1, 

ROOM 2751 

and their possible connection with the deep saud- 
pits and subterranean works at Rome mentioned 
by classical writers. See the story of the murder 
of Asinius (Cic. ;jro Cluerit. 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. H. de Rossi. Some very interesting no- 
tices of this work, and descriptions ijf the Roman 
catacombs are given in Burgon's Letters from 
Riime, pp. 120-258. " De Rossi finds his earliest 
dated inscription A. d. 71. From that date to a. u. 
300 there are not known to exist so many as thirty 
Clu-istian inscriptions bearing dates. Of undated 
inscriptions, however, about 4,000 are referable to 
the period antecedent to the emperor Constantine " 
(Hurgon, p. 148). [See De Rossi's Jnscriplioaes 
Christ. Urbis Roma, 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 is 
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 twent3'-f'our 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., LiJ'e of St. Paul, 
ii. 157 ; Alford's Proleg. ; and especially Prof. 
.Jowett's Epistles oj" St. Paul to the. Romans, Ga- 
litians, and Thess(doniaris, ii. 7-2G. The view 
there adopted, that they were a Gentile Church but 
Jewish converts, seems most in harmony with such 
passiges 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 
Bab) Ion 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. siii. 18, 
Alford's note, 1. c. 

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

ROOF. [Dabei?ath, Amer. ed. ; HousE.J ■ 

ROOM. This word is employed in the .\. ^ . 
of the New Testament as the equivalent of no less 
than eight distinct Greek " terms. The only one 
of these, however, which need be noticed here is 
TrpcoTo/cAjcri'o (Matt, xxiii. 6; Mark xii. 39; Luke 
xiv. 7, 8, x-x. 46), which signifies, not a " room " in 
the sense we commonly attach to it of a chamber, 
but the highest place on the highest couch round 
the dinner or supper-talile — -tlie "ui)permost seat," 
as it is more accurately rendored in Luke xi. 43. 
[Meals.] The word "seat" is, however, generally 

6. rtptuTOKAio-ia (chief, highest, uppermost room. 

See above). 

7. 'Kva.ya.Kov (,au upper room, Mark xiv. 15; Luk« 

xxii. 12). 

8. To virepiiL-r (the upper room, Acts i. 13). 

2752 ROSE 

appropriated by our translators to Ka6eSpa, which 
seems to mean some kind of official chair. In Luke 
xiv. 9, 10, they have rendered rSiros hy both 
" place " and " room." 

The Upper Roo.m of the Last Supper is noticed 
inder its own head. [See House, vol. ii. p. 1 105.] 


ROSE (nb-!|5n, cltabnUtselttk: Kpivov, 
&vQos\ Aq. naKv^'- flos, UUum) occurs twice only, 
namely, in Cant. ii. 1, " I am the Rose of Sharon," 
and in Is. xxxv. 1, " the desert shall rejoice and 
blos.som as the ?'()se." There is much difference 
of opinion as to what particular flower is here 
denoted. Tremellius and Diodati, with some of 
the Kabbins, believe the rose is intended, but there 
seems to be no foundation for such a translation. 
Celsius (Hierob. i. 488) has argued in favor of the 
Narcissus {Pulynnilnis narcissus). This renderinp; 
is supported by the Targum on Cant. ii. 1, where 

Chabutslstleth is explained by narkos Olp"13). 
This word, says Koyle (Kitto's Cyc. art. " ( ha- 
bazzeleth"), is "the same as the Persian n:ii(/us, 

the Arabic /u^SfcyJ 

indicates Narcissus Tdzetta, or the polyai thus 
narcissus." Gesenius {T/ies.s. v.) has no doubt 
that the plant denoted is the '-autumn ciocus" 
{Colchicum nutumnah). It is well worthy of re- 
mark that the Syriac translator of Is. xxxv. 1 
explains chabatststlt'th by chiimtsrilyotIi<i," which is 
evidently the same word, m and b lieinsx inter- 
changed. This Syriac word, according to Michaelis 
{Supjil. p. 0.59), Gesenius, and Hosenmiiller (Bib. 
Bol. p. 142), denotes the Colchicum <(iilumiwle.. 
The Hebrew word points etymologicaUy 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 chabatstselvtii is associated 
with the lily in Cant. I. c, it seems pi-obaMe that 
Solomon is speaking of two plants which blossomed 
about the same time. The narcissus and the lily 
[Liliuni condidum) would be in lilossom together 
in the early spring, while the Colcliicuvi is an 
autumn plant. Thomson {L<md and Booh, pp. 
112, 51-3) suggests the possil)ility of the Hebrew 
name being identical with the Arabic Kliubbaizy 

j , which throughout the East 


■ 1 J ~^)j "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 bvtsel, " a bulb," and has therefore 
no connection with the above-named Arabic word. 
Chateaubriand (Ilineraire, ii. 130) mentions the 
narcissus as growing Iti the plain of Sharon ; and 
Strand (Flor. Paliest. No. 177) names it as a plant 
of Palestine, on the authority of Jiauwolf and 
Hasselquist; see also Kitto's Pliys. f/ist. (f Palest. 
p. 216. Hiller {Ilieropinjl. ii. 30) thinks the cha- 
haUtsekth denotes some species of asphodel [Aspliu- 

' ' V 

b * <f From the locality of Jericho," says Mr. Tris- 
jam, "aiul the situation Uy tlie waters, tliis rose is 
nogt probably the Oleander, the Rknitnilenrlrnn, or 
Me-rose of tlie Greeks, one of the most beautiful and 


dclus) : but the finger-like roots of this genua of 
pl.ints 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 e.xalted 
"as a rose-plant (djj cpvTa p6Sov) in Jericho" 
(comp. also ch. 1. 8; xxxix. 13; VVisd. 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 eijlanifvia (L.), R. sempervirens (L.), E. 
Henkeliann, R. Phanicia (Boiss), R. seriacea, R. 
nngustifoU^t, and R. Libanotica. Some of these 
are doubtful species. R. centifoUn and damascena 
are cultivated everywhere. The so-called " Rose 
of Jericho " is no rose at all, but the Anastatica 
Hierocliunlina, a cruciferous plant, not uncommon 
on sandy soil in Palestine and Egypt. W. H. 

ROSH (trSI [Imad]: 'Pc£s: Ros). In the 
genealogy of (ien. xlvi. 21, Kosh is reckoned among 
the sons of Henjamin, 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 Burrington's Generdor/its, i. 

ROSH (trS"l : 'Ptis, Ez. xxxviii. 2, 3, xxxix. 
1 : translated by the Vulg. capitis, and by the A. 

V. "chief," as if tt'S""), "head"). The whole 
sentence thus rendered by the A. V. " Magog the 
chief prince of Meshech and Tubal," ouiiht to ru.n 
" Magog the prince of Ros'h, Mesech, and Tubal; " 

the word translated " prince " being S"'£i?3, the 
term usually employed for the head of a nomad 
tribe, as of Abraham (in Gen. x.xiii. fi), of the 
Arabians (Gen. xvii. 20), and of the chiefs of the 
several Israelite tribes (Num. vii. 41, 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 ^reat Scythian tribes, of which " Rosh " 
is thus the first. Gesenius considers it beyond 
doubt that by Rosh, or 'Pcis, 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 trilie we have the first trace of the 
Kuss or Russian nation. Von Hammer identifies 
this name with Rass in the Koran (xxv. 40; 1. 12), 
"the peoples Aad, Thaniud, 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 &pxovTa of the 
LXX. {Hur les Oriyims Rnsses, 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 ( Orirjims 
Russicce, Comment. Acad. Petropol. 1726, p.' 409). 
From the junction of Tiras with Meshech and 
Tuljal in Gen. x. 2, Von Hammer conjectures the 
identity of Tiras and Rosli (p. 26). 

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

attractive plants of Palestine, which abounds in all 
the warmer parts of the country by the side of pooll 
.aud streams, and flourishes especially at Jericho, wher* 
I have not seen our rose" (Nat. Hist, of tlie Bibit, 
p. 477). H. 


m the ancient Latin, and possibly also in the 
Sjriac versions, in conneotion with Thiras or 'I'hars. 
But the passage is too corrupt to admit of any 
certain deduction from it. [Kasses.] 

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 tlie 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 
te.Kt of the Old Testament. I'or 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. (vdcpda, nnplitlm), as well 
as the Peshito-Syriac. In the Song of the Three 
Children (23), the servants of the king of Pabylon 
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- 
Ionia, 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, and we were all instantly struck with ex- 
cruciating headaches. The springs consist of sev- 
eral [)its or wells, seven or eight feet in diameter, 
and ten or twelve deep. The whole numlier are 
witliin 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 consumed by tiie markets in the southwest 
of Courdistan, while the pits not far from Kufri 
supply Bagdad and its environs. The Bagdad 
naphtha is black " ( Trav. ii. 440). It is described 
by Dioscorides (i. 101) as the dregs of the Baby- 
lonian asphalt, and wliite in color. According to 
Plutarch (Alex. p. 3.5) Alexander first saw it in the 
city of Ecbatana, where the inhabitants exhiliited 
its marvelous etfects by strewing it along the street 
which led to his headquarters and setting it on 
fire. He then tried an experiment on a pa<xe who 
attended him, putting him into a bath of napiitha 
and setting lii^ht to it (Strabo, xvii. 743), which 
nearly resulted in the lioy's death. Plutarch sug- 
gests that it was naphtha in which IMedea steeped 
the crown and robe which she gave to the daugliter 
of Creon ; and Suidas says that the (ireeks called 
it " Jledea's oil," but the Medes " naphtha." The 

Persian name is ''^ " ''^ {nnfl). Posidonius (in 

Strabo) relates that in Baliylonia there were springs 
>f black and white naphtha. The foinner, says 
otrabo (xvii. 743), were of liquid bitumen, which 

a The Chald. ")"! (Esth. i. 6), which the A. i'. 
lenders "white," and which seems to be identica with 

t» Arab. ^i3, dun. 

' pearls ; ' 

S> i^j liurrah, " 3 

RUE 2753 

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

* ROWERS. [Siiii- (6.)] 

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

RUBIES (Q^*??, penhjijim ; D''3"*2S, penU 
nim: \'t6oi, \- iroAvreKeU'- cuiictie opes, cuncta 
pretiusissima, gem/iue, </t ultinis Jtiiibtis, ebor an- 
tiquum), the invariable rendering of the above- 
namedfHebrew words, concerning the meaning of 
which there is much difference of opitiion and great 
uncertainty. " The price of wisdom is above peni- 
niw " (.lob xxviii. 18: see also Prov. iii. 15, viii. 
11, xxxi. 10). In Lam. iv. 7 it is said, "the 
Nazarites were purer than snow, tliey were whiter 
than milk, they were more ruddy in body than 
peinnim.'" A. Boote {Animnd. Sac. iv. 3), on 
account of the ruddiness mentioned in the last 
passage, supposed "coral" to be intended, for 
which, however, there ajipears to be another Hebrew 
word. [Coral.] .J. D. Michaelis {Siippl. p. 2023) 
is of the same opinion, and compares the Hebrew 

n339 with the Arab. ..S-O, "a branch." Gese- 

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

(^ ."T"^) signifies merely "bright in color," or 
"color of a reddish tinge." This opinion is sup- 
ported by Rosenmiiller (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 Hel>rew 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.)] 

RUB (iriiyavov- ruta.) occurs only in Luke xl 
42: ""Woe unto you, Pharisees! for >6 t'the mint 
and rue and all manner of herbs." The i\xi bere 
spoken of is doulitless the comnDr, RiUx grnre- 
oleiis, a shrubby plant about 2 feet high, of strong 
medicinal virtues. It is a native of tiie Mediter- 
ranean coasts, and has been found by Hasselquist 
on Mount Tabor. Dioscorides (iii. 4.5) describes 
two kinds of Trrjyavov, namely, v. op^ivov and tt. 
KriirevTUP, which denote the Rula mviitana and 
R. grnviolens respectively. Rue was in great 
repute amongst the ancients, both as a condiment 
and as a medicine (Pliny, N. H. xix. 8; Columell. 
R. Riis. xii. 7, § 5: Dioscorides, /. c). The Tal 
mud enumerates rue amongst kitchen-herbs (She- 
hiith, 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 

pearl," is by some understood to mean " mother of 
pearl," or the kind of alabaster called in Oermao 
Perlenmiitterstein. The hXX. hus nCi'vivoi M6oi. Sat 
Gesenius, and Winer (Bibl. Realiv. i. 71). 



done." The rue is too well known to need de- 
icription.o ^V^ H. 

RU'FUS i'Povcpos [red, reddish] : Jiufus) is 
mentioned in Mark xv. 21, along with Alexander, 
as a son of Simon the Cyrensean, whom the Jews 
compelled to Lear 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 JMark lived. Again, in Kom. xvi. 18, the 
Apostle Paul salutes a Kufus whom he designates 
as "elect in the Lord " (e/cAe/crbi' iv Kupi'w), and 
whose mother he gracefully recognizes as having 
earned a mother's claim upon himself l)y acts of 
kindness shown to him. It is generally supposed 
that this Itufus was identical with the one to whom 
Mark refers; and in that case, as JNIark wrote his 
gospel in all probability at Rome, it was natural 
that be should describe to his readers the father 
(who, since the mother was at Home while the 
father apparently was not there, may have died, or 
have come ktcr to that city) from his relationship 
to two well-known memliers of the same, com- 
munity. It is some proof at least of the early 
existence of this view that, in the Actis Andrece e.t 
Petri, both Rufus and Alexander appear as com- 
panions of Peter in Home. 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 fixmily. Yet we are to 
bear in mind that Kufus was not an uncommon 
name (Wetsteiu, Nov. Test., vol. i. p. 6.34); and 
possil)ly, therefore, Mark and Paul may have had 
in view different individuals. H. B. H. 

RUHA'MAH (HT^nn [commiserated]: 
riXfrj/jLfvr]'. misericordiam co/isecuia). The mar- 
gin of our version renders it " having obtained 
mercy '' (Hos. ii. 1). The name, if name it be, is 
like Lo-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 liuhamah is addressed to the daughters 
of the people to denote that they were still the ob- 
jects of his love and tender compassion. 

RU'MAH (na^~l [luY/h, exnlied]: 'Pou/xii: 
Joseph. 'A^ov/uLa'. Rama). iMentioned, 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 l)een conjectured to be the same plaee as 
Arumah (.(udg. ix. 41), which was apparently near 
Shechem. It is more probable that it is identical 
with Dumah, one of the towns in the mountains of 
Judah, near Ileljron (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 liumah in the He- 
brew text from which tlie LXX. translated, since 
they give it as Remna and Rouma. 

Josephus mentions a Rumah in Galilee (5. J. 
ii. 7, § 21). G. 

o * " AVe collected," says Tristram, " four species 
»Ud iu Palestine. Riita uraveoleiis is cultivated '" ( AVi^. 
Bijit. of the Bible, p. 478). H. 

RUSH. [Reed.] 

RUST {QpSxris, Us' cerugo) occurs as the trans- 
lation of two different Greek words in Blatt. vi. 19 
20, and in Jam. v. 3. In the former passage the 
word /Sp&jo-is. which is joined with o-»)s, "moth." 
has by some been understood to denote the larva of 
some moth injurious to corn, as the Tinea grantUa 
(see Stainton, Insecta Britan. iii. 30). The He- 
brew W3 (Is. 1. 9) is rendered ^pwais by Aquila; 
comp. also Epist. Jerem. v. 12, airh lov Kal fipai- 
fxarciiv, " from rust and moths" (A. V. Bar. vi. 12). 
Scultetus (Exerc. Evung. ii. 35, Crit. Sac. vi.) 
believes that the words o-?^s koI ^pucris are an hen- 
diadys for o-r?i ^pwaKoiv. The word can scarcely 
be taken to signify " rust," for which there is 
another term, Us, 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." hpSiais 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 Us on met- 
als. Scultetus correctly observes, " ajrugine de- 
forman'tur quidem, sed iion corrumpuntur immmi ; " 
but though this is strictly speaking true, the an- 
cients, just as ourselves in connnon parlance, spoke 
of the corroding nature of " rust " (comp. Ham- 
mond, Annotal. in Matt. vi. 19). \V. H. 

RUTH (n^n: 'Po^e: probably for ra27"l,' 
" a friend," the feminine of Reu). A Moaliitish 
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 
(Tliamar, Rahab, and Uriah's wife being tlie other 
three) who are named by St. Matthew in the gen- 
ealogy of Christ. [Raiiab.] The incidents in 
Hutli'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 JMoabites 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 lod^e; thy people shall be my people, 
and thy God my God: where thou diest I will die, 
and there will 1 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 
of the young Moabitish widow to the mother, to 
the land, and to the religion of her lost husl)and. 
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 

h Some tliink it is for iHIS"^, " beauty." 
p Patrick suggests the famine iu the days of Qideo* 
(Judg. vi. 3, 4). 


3er ; and immediately upou learning who the strange 
joui.g woniun 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 liuth 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 Elimelech, And taking 
her to be his wife. But there was a nearer kins- 
man than Boaz, and it was necessary tiiat 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 
3hurch; 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 Lord are over 
the righteous; " and for the many interesting rev- 
elations of ancient domestic and social customs 
which are associated with her story, liuth has al- 
ways held a foremost place among the Scripture 
characters. St. Augustine has a curious specula- 
tion on the relative blessedness of lluth, twice mar- 
lied, and by her second marriage becoming the an- 
cestress of Christ, and Anna remaining constant in 
her widowhood {De, bono Viduii.). 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. nd Paulain). 
As the great-grandmother of King David, Ruth 
must have flourished in the latter part of Eli's 
"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 shape, avowedly, 
long after her lifetime: see Ruth i. 1, iv. 7, 17. 
(Bertheau on Ruth, in the Exeg. Ilandb.; Rosen- 
mWW. P roMii. in Lib Ruth; Parker's De Wette; 
Ewald, Gesch. i. 205, iii. 7(30 ff".) A. C. H. 

* RUTH, BOOK OF. The plan of the Dic- 
lioimnj requires tiiat some account should be given 
of the l)ook 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 Bililes at 
present places this history, without any regard to 
the chronology, among the ha gioyraphi or sacred 
writings (PsAlms, Proverbs, Job, Solomon's Song, 
Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, 
Ezra, Neliemiah, Chronicles), so classified with 
reference to their ethical or practical contents. 
[Canon.] Yet some critics maintain that the 
viginal Uebrevv order was that ot the Septuagint 



and the other a later transposition. (See against 
that view Cassel, D is Bach Ruth, p. 201 f.) 

The date of the composition it is impossible to 
ascertain witli much precision. It must have been 
written after the liirth 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 imi]ortance 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 tliis that the custom 
of " phicking off 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 estal)lishment 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 iietween Boaz and 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 '^"l^n^ri, 'J"'|'73';i'5 

(iL 8, 21), "i^nijii^ (ii. 9), ^.rp^pb ^-p-rn; 

(iii. 3), ^I^Dty (iii. 4), S"ia instead of mO 

(i. 20), ]n7 instead of ^3^, and others, but as 
these and some other expressions, partly peculiar 
and jiartly 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 sui-ely cannot be 
alleged with any confidence as marks of a Chaldee 
style (see Keil's Einl. in das A. Test. p. 41.5 f , and 
Wright's Book of Ruth, 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 d<is A. Ttst. § 194), is manifest from the 
entire absence of any repugnance to intermarriage 
between the Hebrews and foreigners. The extrac- 
tion of Ruth is not retrarded 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 traditiona 
names Samuel as the writer; but, as has been sug 
gested already, David was comparatively unknown 
till after the death of Sanniel. 

With regard to the sources of the history we can 
only say with Bleek {Einl. in dus A. Test. p. 355) 
that we cannot decide whether the writer found 
and used an extant written d(;cument or merely 
followed some tradition preserved in the fixniily of 
Uavid which came to his knowledge. Nothing m 
the significance of the personal Hebrew names castii 
any doubt on the truthfulness of the narrative 
Out of all the names occurring there oidy 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 the original names may have 
been changed after their death. On this point see 
C'HtuoN and Names (Anier. ed.). 

The object of the book has been variously 
Btated. 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 (Gen. xxxviii. 8 ; Deut. xxv. 5 fF. ) 
is entirely improbable; for the assumption of that 
relationship appears here C)nly as an incident of the 
history, and in reality Boaz was not the brother 
of Mahlon, the husband of Kuth (iv. 10), but only 
a remote kinsman of the lamLly, 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 theiu- 
selves which the history relates, and the narrator's 
manifest interest m 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. Euth has left her heathen 
native land ; the God of her mother-in-law is her 
God (i. IG). She has gone to an unknown people, 
has taken refuge wider 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 Hiivernick's Eiid. in das A. Ttst. 
ii. 113.) The fact that Matthew (i. 3-G), who adds 
however the names of Thamar and Kahab, 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 Sa\iour 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 Kuth 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 rciility which deserves attention. 
Naomi and liuth 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 " witji reference to 
its fertility, is still famous fof 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 uii here and there, or by a footpath only ; 
and hence it is said that it was " the hap '' or lot 
of Ruth to light upon the part of the field which 
belonged to Boaz (ii. 3). Notice tlie 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, G); for 
Beth-lehem is on higher ground than the adjacent I 


region, and especially on the south and east sidf 

is almost precipitously cut off from its enviiong. 
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 l'2ast. 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 Buok, ii. 50d). 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 era- 
ployed. Mr. Tristram descrilies one of them which 
he saw in Galilee near Lake IJuleh. " A few 
sheaves of wheat were tossed on the fire, and as 
soon as the straw was consimied 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 fin-ther 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 off; and, after 
being thus roasted, they are rubbed out in the 
hand and the kernels eaten (Thomson, ii. 510). 
The Hebrew terms for corn thus roasted are 

''bf^ and W^b)") (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 Archauluyie, 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 see 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 Book, 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. Hes. 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 
corn" (Bibl. Ees. iii. 394). The winnowing took 
place by night in accordance with the agricultural 
h.abits of the land at present; for the heat benig 
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 [yortn) 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 projtrietor, 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 


jays : " Here are needed no guards around the 
tent; the owners of the crops came every night 
■iiid slept upon their threshing-floors. We were 
here in 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 
puard the heap of corn " {Bibl. Res. ii. 446). " It 
is not unusual for the husband, wife, and all the 
family to encamp at the bidders or threshing-floors, 
until the harvest is over" (Thomson, ii. 511). 
The "vail" in which Kuth 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 Kuth applied hers" 
(ii. 509). Barley is rarely used for purposes of 
food in Syria except by the poor; and that Ituth 
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. [Bakley.] 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 concotirse 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. 
six. 1, xxxiv. 20; Deut. xvi. 18; xxi. 19). 

Some of the writers on this book are mentioned 
hi the article on Ruth. The following may be 
added: Umlireit, Ueber Geist u. Zweck des 
Bucks Ruth, in the Studien u. Kritiken, 18-34, 
pp. 305-308. F. Benary, Be Hebrieofum Levi- 
)-aht, pp. 1-70 (1835). C. L. F. Metzger, Lib. Ruth 
ex Ihbr. in Lnt vers. peij)etunque inierpr. illustr. 
(Tub. 1856). Keil, Bibl. Commenlnr, iii. 357- 
382, and traiisl. ni Clark's Foreign Theul. Library, 
viii. pp. 465-494. Paulus Cassel, /> 's Buck der 
Richter u. Ruth, in Lange's Bihelwerh, pp. 198- 
242 (1805). C. H. H. Wright, Bouk of Ruth in 
Hebrew and Ch(ddee (pp. vii.-xlviii. and 1-76, 1-49 ), 
containing a critically revised text to the Chaldee 
Targum of Ruth and valuable notes, explanatory 
Bud philological (1865). Christopher Wordsworth, 
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, in his f/oly Bible, uith 
Introductions and iVotes, ii. pt. i. pp. 158-170 
(1805). 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 (npD2, cussemeth: ^ni, 6\vpa: Jar, 
vicia) occurs in Ex. ix. 32; Is. xxviii. 25; in the 
latter the margin reads "spelt." In Ez. iv. 9 the 
text has " iitches " 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 
uitended {Hierob. ii. 98), and this opinion is sup- 
ported by the LXX. and the Vulg. in Ex. ix. 32, 
and by the Syriac versions. Kye is for the most 
part a northern plant, an(f was probably not culti- 
vated in Egypt or Palestine in early times, whereas 
jpelt has beea long cultivated in the East, where it 


is held in high estimation. Herodotus (ii. 36) 
says the Egyptians " make bread from spelt (oTrb 
6\vu(aiv), which some call zea." See also Phny 
(//. JV. 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. /. c), on the margins or "headlands'' 

of the fields (^71^32); it was used for mixing 
with wheat, barley, etc., for making bread (Ez. 
I. c). The Arabic, Chirsanat, "spelt," is regarded 
by Geseniiis as identical with the Hebrew word, 
m and n being interchanged and r inserted. 
" Spelt " ( Trilicuni spelta) is grown in some parts 
of the south of Germany; it differs but slightly 
from our common wheat ( T. vulijnre). There are 
three kinds of spelt, namely, T. spelta, T. dicoc- 
cum (rice wheat), and T. momcoccum. [KiE, 
Amer. ed.] W. H. 

" L'an It be this phrase which determined the use 
:f the Te Deum as a thanksgiving for victories ? 

fc For the passages which follow, the writer is In- 
bbtod to the kindnes" of a friend. 

SAB'AOTH, THE LORD OF (Kvp.oj <ra- 
fiadd- Dominus Sabaotli). The name is found in 
the English Bible only twice (Rom. ix. 29; .lames 
V. 4). It is probably more familiar through its 
occurrence in the Sanctus of the Te J^eum " — 
"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, 
Faerii Queen, canto viii. 2 : — 

" But thenceforth all shall rest eternally 
With llim that is the God of Sabaoth bight : 
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 peregrination* " 
And .lohnson, in the 1st edition of whose Diuwirt 
ary (1755) Sabaoth and Sabbath are treated as the 
same word. And Walter Scott, Lcanhoe, i. ch. 11 
(Isted.): — "a week, aye the space between twc 
Sabaoths." But this connection fte quite fictitious 
The two words are not only entirely diflferent, but 
have nothing in common. 

Sabaoth is the Greek form of the Hebrew won. 
tsebdoth, "armies," and occurs in the oft-repeatei 
formula which is translated in the Authorized \'er 
sion of the Old Test, by " Lord of hosts," " Lori 
God oi hosts.'''' We are apt to take " Aos^s " (prob- 
ably in connection with the modern expression th< 
"heavenly host") as implying the angels — bu 
this is surely inaccurate. Tsebdoth is in constan' 
use in the 0. T. for the national army or force of 
fighting-men,<^ and there can be no doubt that ir 
the mouth and the mind of an ancient Hebrew, Je- 
hovah-tsebdoth was the leader and commander of 
the armies of the nation, who " went forth witl 
them" (Ps. xliv. 9), and led them to certain vic- 
tory over the worshippers of Baal, Cheinosh, iMo- 
lech, Ashtaroth, and other false gods. In latei 
times it lost this peculiar significance, and l)ecame 
little if anything more than an alternative title for 
God. The name is not found in the Pentateuch, 

c n'WnV, See 1 Sam. xii. 9, 1 K. i. 19, and pai 
si'ot in Burgh "s Concordance , p. 1058 

2758 SABAT 

Dr 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 {■2,a(pdy\ Alex. Sa^ar; [Aid. 2a- 
/Sar:] Phasphat). 1. The sons of Sabat are 
enumerated amona; 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. (2a/3aT: Habath.) The month Sebat (1 
Mace. xvi. 14). 

(2ai8aTa7os; Alex. 2a3/3aTaias; [Aid. 2a;3aT- 
ToiasO Si(bbatheus). Shabbethai (1 Esdr. ix. 
48; comp. Neh. viii. 7). 

SAB'ATUS (2a/3a0os; [Aid. :S.d0aTos:] Znb- 
dis). Zabad (1 Esdr. ix. 28; comp. Ezr. x. 27). 

SAB'BAN {-Zafidwos- Banni). Binnui 1 
(1 E^sdr. viii. 63; comp. Ezr. viii. 33).' 

SABBATH (n2t27, " a day of rest," from 

n^C, " to cease to do," " to rest "). This is the 

- T ' ' ' 

obvious and undoubted etymology. The resem- 
blance of the word to 572117, " seven," misled Lac- 
tantius {Inst. iii. 14) and others; but it does not 
Beem more than accidental. Biihr (Symbolih, ii. 

533-34) does not reject the derivation from H'^W, 

but traces that to 21ti7, somewhat needlessly and 
fancifully, as it appears to us. Plutarch's associa- 
tion of the word with the Bacchanalian cry aa^oi 
may of course be dismissed at once. We have also 

(Ex. xvi. 23, and Lev. xxiii. 24) ^in^tT, of more 

intense signification than n^C: also ^2127 

pnH^C', " a Sabbath of Sabbaths " (Ex. xxxi. 15, 
and elsewhere). The name Sabbath is thus ap- 
plied to divers great festivals, but principally and 
usuallv to the seventh day of the week, the strict 
observance of which is enforced not merely in the 
general IMosaic code, but in the Decalogue itself. 

The first Scri[)tural notice of the weekly Sab- 
bath, though it is not mentioned by name, is to lae 
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, ajiproach 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 
ane given to, and to lie 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- 
enm and distinctive features of Helirew religious 
'ife. Its neglect or profanation ranked foremost 
(imong national sins; the renewed observance of it 
iras sure to accompany national reformation. 

Before, then, deaUng with the question whether 

o Vide Patrick in loc, and Seldea, De Jure Nat. et 
Vent. iii. 9. 
b Vide Qrotius in loc, who refers to Aben-Ezra. 


its original institution comprised inai kind at kr^, 
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 i3hildren 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, sutRciently ex- 
plained by the words of ver. 20, " 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 plausiliility 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 Fourtli (_'(jnmiandment. 
There it is distinctly set forth, and extended to the 
whole of an Israelite's household, his son and hia 
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 Conmiandment, 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 commanuraent. 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 oliserv- 
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 
nnist not suppose that our Lord prescribed a real 
violation of the Law ; and it requires little thouirh*. 
to distinguish between such a natural and almost 
necessary act as that which He commanded, and 
the carrying of burdens in connection witli busi- 
ness which is denounced by Jeremiah. By Ezekiei 
(xx. 12-24), a passage to which we nnist sliortly 
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 euterei 


Into a covenant to renew the observance of the Law, 
in which the>- pledged themselves neither to buy 
nor sen 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 0|)eii apostasj'. 
The faithful remnant were so scrupulous concerning 
it, as to forbear fighting in self-defense on that day 
(1 j\lacc. ii. 36), and it was only tlie terrible conse- 
quences that ensued which led Mattathias and bis 
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. Amnt., i. 415; 
Juvenal, Siit. xiv. 9&-106, which indicate this, are 
too well known to require citation. Our Lord's 
rcode of observing the Sal)liath was one of the main 
features of his life, which his Pharisaic adversaries 
most eagerly watched and criticised. They had* 
by that time invented many of those fantastic pro- 
hibitions whereby the letter of the commandment 
Beenicd 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-JIosaic origin and ol)servance, it 
will be well to consider and determine what were 
its true idea and purpose in that Law of which 
beyond doubt it formed a leading feature, and 
among that people 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 : — 

I. 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 Sabliatical 
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 

IIL 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 Kabbinical 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 
lu Moses' seat " (.Matt, xxiii. 2, 3) had a right to 
mpose. How a general law is to be carried out in 
jarticular cases, must often be determined for 

o It is obvious from the whole scope of the chapter 
th&t the words, " Ye shall keep my sabbaths," in Lev. 
«Ti. 3, related to all these. Id 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 ha\e 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 orievous to be borne" which (be 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 S.abbath — a 
notion probably derived from Jeremiah's warnings 
against the commercial traffic carried on at the 
gates of Jerusalem in his day. The harmless act 
of the disciples in the corn-field, and tlie beneficent 
healing of the man ni the synagogue with the 
withered hand fMatt. xii. 1-13), were alike re- 
garded as breaches of the Law. Our Lord's reply 
in the former case will come before us under our 
third head ; in the latter He appeals to the 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 ancl place 
in which He spoke. It is remarkable, howe\er, 
that we find it prohibited in other traditions, the 
law laid down being, that in this case a mail might 
throw some needful nourishment to the animal, but 
must not pull him out till the next day. (See 
Uey]in, Hist, of SrMath, 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 ii'om it. Still 
more fantastic prohibitions were issued. It was 
unlawful to catch a flea on the Sabliath, 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 Samai-itans 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 posturt 
wherein he chanced to be at its connnencenient — 
a rule which most people would find quite destruc- 
tive of its character as a day of rest. When minds 
were occupied with such microlofpj, an this has been 
well called, there was obviously no limit to the 
number of prohibitions which they might deTise, 
confusing, as they obviously did, abstinence from 
action of every sort with rest from business and 

That this perversion of the Sabbath had become 
very general in our Saviour's time is apparent both 
from the recorded olyections to acts of his on that 
day, and from his marked conduct on occasions to 
which those objections were sure to be urged. Thera 
is no reason, 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 tlie 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 I^aw, 
the Sabbatical year would seem to be mainly referred 
to (vv. 34, 35). 


not deemed inconsistent with tlie true seoije and 
spirit of tlie .Siilibath. It was tliounht riglit 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 ah-eady protested against 
the notion which has been entertained that they 
were breaches of the Sabbath intended as harbin- 
gers of its al'olition. Granting for argument's sake 
that such aboHtion \vas 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 
bad 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 ])rofane the Sabbath and are blame- 
leas," 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 a 
fortiori^ to the effect, that if even a positive law 
might give place on occasion, nuich more might an 
arbitrary rule like that of the liabbis 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 the Man, the 
Kepresentative and Kxemplar 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 ^iew of that ordinance. The acts con- 
demned by the Pharisees ivere 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 ^ 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 
iseventh 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 
khe month was to be characterized by cessation 
6t)m labor; but it certainly has a place in the 


Sabliatical scale. Its great centre was the I'east 
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 anj 
notice of humiliation. On the Day of Atonement 
the people were to afflict 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 e.ich forty-ninth jear 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 lie sti^; that the 
poor of thy people may eat; and what they leave 
the beasts of the field shall eat." This is inmie- 
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 tliat 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. iMany, we 
suspect, while reading the Fourth (,'onunandment, 
merely regard him as suljected, together with hJs 
host and iamily, to a prohibition. But if we con- 
sider how continually the stran(jvr 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 hig 
inclusion in the Fourth 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 lajid keep a sabbath unto the Lord. Six )ears 
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 sjbbath 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 w^ith 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 


hia God; bis land was not his owii but God's (Lev. 
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 (r>eut. XV. ). We do not read much of the 
way in which, or the extent to which, the Hebrews 
ol)served the Sabbatical year. The reference to it 
(2 'Jhr. xxxvi. 21) leads us to conclude that it bad 
been much nesilected previous to tl|p Captivity, but 
it was certaiidy not lost sight of afterwards, since 
Alexander the Great 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 .Jul)ilee 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 Sabliatical years, or the fiftieth, a question 
on which opinions are divided. [Jubilep;, Year 
OF.] The difficulty in the way of deciding for 
the latter, tiiat 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 Satibatical 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 jear 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 Law. 

III. \^'e must consider the actual enactments of 
Scripture respecting the seventh day. However 
homogetieous the different Sabbatical periods may 
be, the weekly Sabliath 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 oliservance by the 
patriarchs, and commence otir inquiry with the 
institution of it in the wilderness, in connection 
with the gathering of manna (Ex. xvi. 23). The 
prohiliition 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, ol)viously endiraces an abstinence from 
worldly laljor 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 Helirews 
had tliey been left to themselves, as we must infer 
from the numerous laws enacted for his protection. 
Had man been then regarded by him as made for 
the Sabliath, not the Sabbath for man, that is, had 
the prohibitions of the connnandment been viewed 
as the putting on of a yoke, not the conferring of a 
privileiie, one of the dominant r.ace 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 
priuciple, and testifies to its havintj been a benefi- 
oent privilege for nil 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 slialt 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 (jod commanded 
thee to keep the Sabbath-day" (Dent. v. 12-15). 
But although this be so, and though it be plain 
that to come within the scope of tiie connnand- 
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 whicli, closely con- 
nected no doubt with these others, is yet higher and 
more comprehensive. The divine method of work- 
hig and rest is there proposed to man as the model 
alter which he is to work and to rest. Time then 
presents a perfect whole, is then well rouniled and 
entire, when it is shaped into a week, modeled on 
the six days of creation and their following Sab- 
bath. Six days' work and the se\enth day's rest 
conform the life of man to the method of his Cre- 
ator. In distrii)uting his life thus, man may look 
up to God as his Archetype. \\'e need not sup- 
pose that the Hebrew, e\en 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 consunnnation, 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 dajs' 
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, lieing sometimes taken a.s the 
representative of it all (Neh. ix. 14). The Tal- 
mud says that "the Sabbath is in in)portance 
etpial to the whole Law;" that "he who dese- 
crates the Sabbath openly is like him who trans- 
gresses the whole Law;" while Mainionides winds 
up ills discussion of the suliject thus: "He who 
breaks the ^^abbath openly is like the worshipper 
of the stars, and both are like heathens in every 

In all this, hovvever, we have but an assertion 
of the general principle of resting on the Sabbath, 
and nuist seek elsewhere fur information as to th# 



ietails wherewith that principle was to be brought 
out. We liave already seen that the work forbidden 
is not to be confounded with action of every sort. 
To make this confusion was the error of the later 
Jews, and their prohibitions would go far to render 
the Sabbath incompatible with waking life. The 
terms in the commandment show plainly enough 
the sort of work wliich is contemplated. They are 

*T327n and nDS7tt, the former denoting servile 
work, and the latter business (see Gesenius sttb 
vvc. ; Michaelis, Lmos of Moses, iv. 195). The 
Pentafeuch presents us with but three applications 
of the general principle. The lighting a fire 
in any house on the Sabljath was strictly forbid- 
deu ( b^x. 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 force ; but some <(t least of the Kabbis 
have held that it applies only to lighting a fire for 
cuhnary pui-poses, 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 the Pentateuch was the prohibi- 
tion to go out of the camp, the conmiand to every 
one to abide in his place (Kx. xvi. 29) on the Sab- 
bath-day. 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 applied, 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 eUs 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 JMichaelis {Laws of 
Moses, iv. 196) to show that it was not. His 
reasons are as follows : — 

1. The prohibited ]"^2^, senv'ce, 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 
Kabbah (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 sucli abstinence 
from warfare on the part of the chosen peojile. 

At a subsequent period we know (1 Mace. ii. 
34-38) that the scruple existed and was acted on 
with most calamitous effects. Those efl'ects 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 nuist be thought. 


nearly as great a misconception of the institution 
as the overruled scruple. Certainly warfare hag 
nothing to do with the servile labor or tlie worldly 
business contemplated in the I'ourth 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 Km- 
pire the Jews procured exemption from military 
service by means of it. It was not, however, wii h- 
out its e\ils. In the siege of Jerusalem by i*om- 
pey (.loseph. Aiil. xiv. 4), as well as in the fin:»l one 
by Titus, the Romans took advantage of it, and, 
abstaining from attack, prosecuted on the Salitath, 
witho\it molestation from the enemy, such worki 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 takeji 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, lighting of fires, etc., did 
not apply to the rites of religion. It became a 
dictum that tliere ivas 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 ofTerings 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 prohiliitions 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 anj'thing 
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 T>aw 
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 
Mfpeot in its theological character ; we mean no lea« 

a per.'son than M. Proudhon (JDe /i CHctnation tik 


itea that they should read the Law on the Salihath- 
ilaj'8, the feasts, and the new moons," in itself im- 
prcliable, is utterly unsupported by the Penta- 
teuch. The rise of such custom in after times is 
explicable enough. [Synagogue.] But from an 
early period, if not, as is most probable, from the 
eery institution, occupation with holy themes was 
regarded as an essential part of the observance of 
the Sabbath. It would seem to ha\e been an 
habitual practice to repair to a propliet on that 
day, in order, it nuist be presumed, to listen to his 
teachmg (2 K. iv. 23). Certain Psalms too, e. g. 
the 92d, were , composed for the Sabbath, and 
probably used in private as well as in the 'I'aber- 
nacle. At a later period we come upon precepts 
that on the Sabbath tlie mind should lie uplifted 
to hif;h and holy themes — to God, 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 tiie 
notion of a holy day. We have more than once 
pointed out that pleasure, as such, was never con- 
sidered 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 wliat is 
good and useful, but indulging in dancing and 
luxury. Some of the heathen, indeed, such as 
Tacitus, imagined that the Sabbath was kept by 
them as a fast, a mistake which might have arisen 
from their abstinence from cookery on that day, 
and perhaps, as Heylin conjectures, from their 
postponement of theii' 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 luxus Sulibfitnrius, which we find 
in Sidonius Apollinaris (i. 2), and which has been 
thought a proverbial one, illustrates the mode in 
which they celebrated it in the early centuries 
of our era. The following is Augustine's descrip- 
tion of their practice: " Kcce hodiernus dies Sab- 
bati est: hunc in prsesenti tempore otio qnodam 
corporaliter languido et tluxo et luxurioso celelirant 
>luda;i. Vacant enim ad nugas, et cum Dens prae- 
ceperit Salibatum, i!li in his quse Deus prohibet 
exercent Sabbatum. Vacatio nostra a mails operi- 
bus, vacatio illorum a bonis operibus est. Melius 
est enim arare quani saltare. Illi ab opere bono 
vacant, ab opere nugatorio non vacant" (Aug. 
Knurr, in Psalmos, Ps. xci. : see, too, Aug. Be 
decern Chordis, iii. 3; Chrysost. Honiil. I., De 
Lnzaro ; and other references given by Bingham, 
EccL Ant. lib. xx. cap. ii.). And if we take what 
alone is in the Law, we shall find nothing to be 
counted absolutely obligatory but rest, cessation 
from labor. Now, as we have more than once 
had occasion to oliserve, 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 de^outly 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- 
[ilication and in detail, the answer to this must 
ilmost indefinitely vary with men's varying cir- 
lumstances, habits, education, and familiar asso- 

We have seen then, that, for whomsoever else the 
»ro\'iglon 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 God's claim and so- 
ciety's, on e^■ery 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 liy 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 doulit exists that the weekly Salibath 
was always partially, and in the Pharisaic and sub- 
sequent times very strictly, however mistakenly, 

We have hitherto viewed the Sabbath merely a? 
a Mosaic ordinance. It remains to ask wJiether, 
first, there be indications of its having been pre- 
viously known and observed ; 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-Mosaic 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 eating 
blood 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 le.ast, 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 Commaiid 
nient. If the latter, then the reference to tht 
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 grannnar; 
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 Sabhsth hM 



been found in Gen. iv. A, where we read that " in 
process of time it came to ])ass that Cain brought 
oi the fruit of the ground an offering unto the 
Ivord." 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 begimiing 
from al)ove. Its arbitrary and factitious character 
is appealed to in further confirmation of this. The 
Bacredness 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 Sabbatli-day, is 
appealed to as proof that that day was already 

It is easy to see that all this is hut a precarious 
foundation on which to build. It is not cle<ir 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 ])roliably 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 unknowni 
to the ancient Greeks and Romans, being adopted 
by the latter people from the Egyptians, as nmst 
be inferred from the well-known passage of Dion 
Cassius (xxxvii. 18. ID), at a period in his own 
time comparatively recent; while of the Eg\ptians 
themsehes it is thought improbable that they were 
^acquainted with such division in early times. The 
Bacredness 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 oidy 
to its previous institution in connection with the 
gathering of manna, or may be but the natural 
precept to Iteep in mind the rule about to be de- 
livered — a phrase natural and contiimally recur- 
ring in the intercourse of life, as, tor example, be- 
tween parent and child — on the other hand, the 
perplexity of the Israelites respecting the double 
supply of manna on the sixtii day (Ex. xvi. 22) 
leads us to infer that the Sabbath fur 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 luicertain notices 
ffliich we possess, infer more than that the weekly 
livision of time was known to the Israelites and 
i)thers before the Law of Moses. [Wi:ek.] There 
is probability, though not more, in the opinion of 
'jrrutiua, that the seventh ilay was deemed sacred 


to religious observance; but that the SabbaticBl 
observance of it. the cessation from labor, wu 
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 lielongs only to the 
obsolete enactments of the Levitical L»w 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 difterence between such feat- 
ures of his Law as are but local and temporary, 
and such as are hiunan 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 Sabliath 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 effected 
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 I!om. 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 Kabbis, and the strange code of pro- 
hibitions which they jiut 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 tlie 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,'' surelj 


Sihibit to us the Law of the Sabbath as human 
iiid universal. The former sets it forth as a priv- 
iletje and a blessing, and were we therefore to sup- 
pose it absent from the provisions of tlie covenant 
of grace, we must suppose that covenant to have 
stinted man of something that was made for him, 
something tliat oonduces to his well-being. The 
latter wonderfully exalts the Sabbath by referring 
it, even as do the record of creation and the 
Fourth Commandment, to God as its archetype; 
and in showing us that the repose of God does 
not exclude work — inasiimch as God opens his 
hand daily and fiUeth all things living with plen- 
twusness — 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 Apostles — its violation 
is never denounced by tlifem. Sabbatli-breakers 
are never included in any list of offenders. Col. 
ii. 10, 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 prohibilions issued in connection with 
the former, while the omission of the Sabbath from 
the list of " necessary things " to be observed by 
the Gentiles (Acts xv. 29) shows that they were 
regarded by the Apostles as free from obligation in 
this matter. 

When we turn to the monuments which we 
possess of the early Church, we find ourselves on 
the whole carried in the same direction. The 
seventh day of tiie week continued, indeed, to lie 
observed, being kept as a feast by the greater part 
of the Church, and as a fast from an early period 
by that of Rome, and one or two other churches 
of the West; but not as obligatory on Christians 
in the .same way as on .lews. The Council of 
Laodicea prohibited all scruple about working on 
it; and there was a very general admission among 
the early Fathers that Christians did not Sabbd- 
fize in the letter. 

Again, the observance of the Lord's Day as a 
Sabbath would have been well-nigh impossible to 
the majority of Christians in tiie first ages. The 
slave of the heathen master, and the child of the 
heathen father, could neither of them have the 
control of his own conduct in such a matter; while 
the Christian in general would have been at once 
betrayed and dragged into notice if he was found 
abstaining from labor of every kind, not on the 
seventh but the first day of the week. And yet 
it is clear that many were enabled witiiout blame 
w 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 
lacrifice drau^'^ed it into dayliij;ht. 

When the early Fathers speak of the Lord's 
)*y, they sometimes, perhaps, by comparing, con- 
nect it with the Salibath: but we have never found 
t passage, previous to the conversion of Constan- 
Bne, 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 Con.stantin* 
things become different at once. His celebrated 
edict prohibitory of judicial proceedings on the 
Lord's Day was 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 Sal^bath 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 Itecame the 
case, the Christian Church, which ever lielieved 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 ennoliling to humanity at larsje, 
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 oliser\e both the I.,ord's Day, as was 
done'by Christians after Constanthie, 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 stronrjly in the 
very nature of the Law, and in the teaching re- 
specting it of Him who came not to destroy the 
Law, 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 
commeraoratioti of our Lord's lying in the sepul- 
chre throughout that day. Its observance therefore 
would not ol)SCure the aspect of the Lord's Day as 
that of hebdomadal rest and refreshment, and as 
consequently the prolongation of the Salsbath in 
the essential character of that lienignant ordinance; 
and, with some variation, therefore, of \erl)al state- 
ment, a connection between the Fourth Command- 
!nent 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 b;^the Roman world of tlie 
Egyptian week almost contemporaneously with tlie 
foundini; of the Christian Church. L>ion 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 (lod with a literal Salibatismus; for prolonging 
in the Christian kingdom that great institution 



irhich, whether or not historically older than the 
Mosaic Law, is yet in its essential character adapted 
to all mankind, a witness for a personal Creator 
and Sustainer of the universe, and for his call to 
men to model their work, their time, and their 
dves, 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 
the rest on which Joshua entered, and into which 
he made Israel to enter, camiot lie the true and 
final rest, inasmuch as the Psalmist long after- 
wards spaaks 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 KaraTravcns, 
and that in the words just quoted it is changed 
into aal3l3aTia/^Js, which certainly means the 
keeping of rest, the act of sabbatizing rather than 
the objective rest itself. It has accordingly been 
buggested that those words are not the author's 
conclusion — which is to be found in the form of 
tjiesis in the declaration " we which have believed 
do enter into rest "" — but a parenthesis to the 
effect tliat " to the people of (iod," the (Jhristian 
community, there remaineth, tliei'e is left, a sab- 
batiziny, the great chantre 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 Or W'ardlaw in his Discimrses on the 
Sabbath. It will not be felt fatal to it that more 
than 300 years should have passed liefore the 
Church at large was in a situation to discover the 
heritage that had l)een 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 l;efure she could fully open her eyes to 
the fact that sal)l)atizing was still left to her; 
and her memliers might well lie ijermitted 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 tlie Hebrews. Chr^sostom 
(in loc.) denies that there is any reference to heb- 
iomadal sabbatizing. Xor have we found any 
commentators, besides the two just named, who 
admit that there is such, with the single exception 
of Ebrard. Dean Alford notices the interpretation 
jnly to condemn it, while Dr. H^sey gives another, 
and that the usual explanation of the, sug- 
gesting a sufficient reason for the change of word 

a According to this exposition the words of ver. 
J, "for he that hatl\ entered," etc. are referred to 


from KaroLTravais to cra^^aTtaixos. It would uot 
have been right, however, to have passed it over 
in this article without notice, as it relatos 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 Bamp- 
ton Lectures, has sketched and distinguished every 
variety of doctrine which has been or stiU 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 prohiliitions, 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 
infeired from some striking remarks of Dr. Kalisch 
[L'oinm. on A'xodus), ]}. '2~-i, who winds up with 
quoting a beautiful passage from the late Mrs. 
Horatio Montefiore's work, A Few Words io the 

Finally, M. Proudhon's striking pamphlet, Be 
la Celebration du Dimanche consideree sous les 
rapports de l ilyfjihne piMique, de In Monde, des 
relations de Faimlle et de Cite, Paris. 1850, may 
be studied with great advantage. His remarks 
(p. 07) 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, iv rrj fitS 
TitiU cra^^aTiiv, means on the Jirst day of the 
week. The Kalibis have the same phraseology, 
keeping, howe\'er, the word Sid>bath in the sin- 
' On the phrase of St. Luke, vi. 1, iv rt^ aafi^dTCfi 
SevTepoirfjccTcii, see S.abbatical Year. 

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, f Buxtorf, De Synag. ; Barrow, Jixpos. of 
the Decalogue ; Paley, .Uond and Political Philos- 
ophy, V. 7; James, On the Sacraments and Sab- 
bath; Whately's Tlwughts on the Sabbath; Ward- 
law. On the Sabbath ; Maurice, On the Sabbath ; 
Michaelis, Laws of .Vfusts, arts, cxciv.-vi., clxviii. ; 
Oehler, in Herzog's Real- F.ncyld. "Sabbath"; 
Winer, Realwbrterbuch, "Sabbath"; Biihr, Symr- 
holik des Mos. Cult. vol. ii. bk. iv. ch. II, § 2; Ka- 
lisch. Historical and Critical Commentary on 0. 
T., in J-Jxod. XX. ; Proudlion, De la Cclubi-aiion 
du Dimanche; and especially Dr. Hessey's Sun- 
diiy ; the Bam/>t<m Lecture for 1860. F. G- 

* Historical Sketch of the Christim Sabbath, 
by Rev. L. Coleman, Bibl. Sacra, i. 52G-552, and 
Chan<je of the Sabbath from the Seventh to the 
First Day of the iree/-,"bv John S. Stone, D. D., 
Theol. Eclectic, iv. 542-570, are valuable articles 
on ibis suliject. The literature is given with great 
fullness in R. Cox's Literature of the Sabbath 
Question, 2 vols., Edinb. 1865. H. 



Sirov 6S6s, Acts i. 12). On occasion of a viola- 
tion of the coniniandraeiit by certain of the people 
who went to look for manna on th3 seventh ilay, 
Moses enjoined every man to "abide in liis place," 
and forbade any man to "gO out of his place" on 
that day (Ex. xvi. 2i). It seems natural to look 
on this as a mere eiiaetnientyj/'o re nald, and hav- 
ing no bearini^ on any state of affairs subsequent to 
the journey through the wilderness and the daily 
gathering of manna. VV^hetlier the earlier Hebrews 
did or did not regard it thus, it is not easy to say. 
Nevertheless, the natural inference from 2 K. iv. 2.3 
is against the supposition of such a prohibition be- 
ing known to the spokesman, Elisha almost cer- 
tainly living — as may be seen fi-oni the whole nar- 
rative — much more than a Sabbath-day's jduriiey 
from Shuiiem. HeylLn infers from the incidents of 
David's flight from Saul, and Elijah's from Jezebel, 
that neither felt bound by such a limitation. Their 
situation, however, being one of extremity, cannot 
be safely argued 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 
place was un.avoidable, it was thought necessary to 
determine the allowable ftmount, 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 superstitious 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 Scribes and Pharisees sitting in 
Moses' seat" were entitled to exercise. It is plain 
that the limits of the Sabbath-day's journey must 
have been a great check on the profanation of the 
day in a country where business was entirely agi-i- 
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 Sabb.ath-day " (Matt. x.xiv. 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 procuraWe. 

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 beint;, 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'sjourney. We find the 
same distance given as the circumference outside the 
walls of the Levitical cities to be counted as their 
suburbs (Num. xxxv. 5). The terminus n quo was 
thus not a man's own house, but the wall of the 
city where he dwelt, and thus the amount of lawfid 
Sabbath-<lay's journeying must therefore liave va- 
ried greatly ; the movements of a Jew in one of the 
imall cities of his own land being restricted indeed 
Vhen compared with those of a Jew in Alexandria, 
Intioch, or Rome. 

When a man was obliged to go farther than a 
labbath-day's journey, on some good ami alluw- 


able ground, it was incumbent on him on the even- 
ing before to furnish himself with food enough foi 
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 paces 
from his city on the Sabi)ath is referred to by 
Origen, yrepi dpx^''> '^'- -' ^y Jerome, ad Alyn- 
s'uun, quaest. 10; and by Qicumenius — 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 {^a^^aTalos: Sahbathieus). 
Sh.yhbethai 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 Fix. xxiii. 10, 11, given in 
words corresponding to those of the Fourth Com- 
mandment, and followed (v«r. 12) by the reen- 
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 peojile 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 Lev. xxv. 
2-7, and finally in Deut. xv., in which last place 
the new feature presents itself of the seventh year 
being one of release to debtors. 

When we combine these several notices, we find 
that every se\'enth year the land was to have 
rest to enjoy Iter Sabbitlis. Neither tillage nor 
cultivatiun of any sort was to be practiced. The 
spuntaneous growth of the soil was not to be 
reaped by the owner, whose rights of property 
were in abe3ance. All were to have their share in 
the gleanings : the poor, the stranger, and eveii the 
cattle. • 

This singular institution has the aspect, at first 
sight, of total impracticability. This, however, 
wears off when we consider that in no year was 
the owner allowed to reap the whole harvest (Lev. 
xix. 9, xxiii. 22). Unless, therefore, the remainder 
was gleanefl 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. Moreover, it is 
clear that the owners of land were to lay by com 
in previous years for their own and tlieir families' 
wants. This is the unavoidable inference from 
Lev. xxv. 20-22.. And though the right of 
property was in abeyance during the Sabb.atica! 
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 Ueut xv. The exceptions 
laid down are in the case of a foreigner, and that 
of there being no |ioor in the land This '.atter 
howevc'r, it is straightway said, is what wUl nevei 



happen. But though debts might not be claimed, 
it is not said that they might not te voluntarily 
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 well-known y^cos/W" 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 {S/ieviil/i, 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 fi.^ed 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 tlie land. The land shall " keep a Sab- 
bath unto the Lord." " The land is mine" 

There may also have been, as Kalisch conjec- 
tures, an eye to the benefit which would accrue to 
the land from lying fellow e\'ery se\enth year, in a 
time when the rotation of crops was unknown. 

The Sabbatical year opened in the Sabbatical 
month, and the wliole Law was to be read every 
such year, during the Feast of Tabernacles, to the 
assemljled ])eople. 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 Salibatical years, 
the Sabbatical scale received its completion in the 
year of Jubilee. For the question whether that 
was identical with the seventh Sabliatical year, or 
was that which succeeded it, i. e. whether tlie year 
of Jul)ilee fell every forty-ninth or every fiftieth 
year, see .Jubilee, Yeah t)F. 

The next question that presents itself regarding 
the Sabbatical j'ear relates to the time wiien its ob- 
servance liecame obligatory. It has been inferred 
from Leviticus xxv. 2, " \Vhen 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 p#3ple 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- 
rjuest of which took seven years and the distribu- 
tion seven more. 

A further question arises. At whatever period 
the obedienoe to this law ouglit to have com- 
menced, was it in point of fact obeyed '? Tiiis is 
Ml inquiry which reaches to more of the Jlosaic 
statutes than the one now before us. It is, we ap- 
prehend, rare to see the wliole of a code in full op- 
eration; and the j)henomena of Jewish history pre- 
rious to the Captivity present us with no such 

" Vl3D1~lD = probably npo^ovKrj or ^rpoo•^oA^, 
For this and other curious sjiopulations on the ety- | SnO'it/i'i) 
Bology of the word, see Buxtorf, L^jc. TcUiiunj. 1807. 1 In accordat ;e with the identi ications of the settle 


spectacle. In the threateninj^ iontaineJ in Le? 
xxvi., judgments on the violation of the SabbaticW 
year are particularly contemplated (vv. S?, Si,', 
and that it was greatly if not quite neglected ap-^ 
pears from 2 Chr. xs»vi. 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 lung as 
she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill three- 
score and ten years." Some of tlie Jewish com- 
mentators ha\e inferred from this that their foie- 
fethers had neglected exactly seventy Sal)batical 
years. If such neijlect was continuous, the law 
must have been disobeyed throughout a period of 
490 years, i. e. through nearly the whole duration 
of the monarchy; and as there is nothing in the 
previous* history leading to tlie 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 scruj3ulously reverenced, so 
we now find traces of a like observance of the .Sab- 
batical year. We read (1 Mace. vi. 40) 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 duriiii!; it, since it 
was unlawful for them to sow seed or reap harvest 
then; so, too, did Julius Caesar (Jcseph. Ant. xiv. 
10, § 6). Tacitus {Hkt. lib. v. 2, § 4), having 
mentioned the observance of the Sabbath by the 
Jews, adds: " Dein blandieiiti inertia septimum 
quoque annum ignavice datum." And St. Paul, in 
reproaching the Galatians with their JeflMsh 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 |)lirase, eV aa^^drw SeurepoirpcoTto (Luke 
vi. 1). Various explanations have been given of 
the term, but one of tlie 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 ([Yat.] Sa^^a/as; [Kom. Aid.] 
Alex, ^a^^atos- <S'(("ie«s), 1 iisdr. ix. 32. [She- 
MAIAH, 14.] 

SABE'ANS. [Sei3A; Sheba.] 

SA'BI ([Yat. l,a^€iri, joined with preceding 
word: not] 2a/3eiV [-see errata in Mai; Kom. 
Aid.] Alex. 2a/3n'): Sabathen). "The children of 
Pochereth of Zebaim " appear in 1 Esdr. v. .34 
as "the sons of Phacareth, the .sons of Sabi." 

* SA'BIE (3 syl.), the reading of the A. V 
ed. 1611 and other early editions in 1 Esdr. v. 34, 
representing the Greek 2a/3iii), has been improperly 
changed in later editions to Sabi. A. 

SAB'TAH (nri^p. in 21 MSS. SrQtt7. 

Gen. X. 7; ^j"^??. 1 Chr. i. 9 [see Iielow], A. Y 

Sabt.v: 2a8a(?a : [Yat in 1 Chr., 2aflaTo:j 

The third in order of the sons of ('ush 


3,ent8 of the Ctishites in the article Arabia and 
•Isewhere, Sabtah should be looked for along the 
southern coast of Arabia. The v\riter has found 
110 traces in Arab writers; but the statements of 
Pliny (vi. 32, § 155, xii. 32), Ptolemy (vi. 7, p. 411), 
and Avim. Ferqd. (27), respecting Sabbatha, Sa- 
bnta, or Sobotale, metropolis of the Atraniitae 
(probably the Chatraniotitae), seem to point to a 
trace of the tribe which descended from Sabtah, 
always supposing that this city Sabbatha was not a 
corru[)tion or dialectic variation of Saba, Seba, or 
Sheba. This point will be discussed under Siieisa. 
It is only necessary to remark here that the indi- 
cations afforded by the Greek and Roman writers 
of Arabian geography require very cautious hand- 
ling, presenthig, as they do, a mass of contradic- 
tions and transparent travellers' 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. H. 
vi. c. xxiii. § 32); it was also situate in the terri- 
tory of king Elisarus, or Eleazus (comp. Anon. 
PeripL ap. Miiller, G'tai/. Min. pp. 278, 270), sup- 
posed by Fresnel to be identical with " Ascharides," 
or " Alascharissoun," in Arabic (Journ. Asini. 
Nouv. Serie, x. 191). Winer thinks the identifi- 
cation of Sabtah with Sabbatha, etc., to be prob- 
able; and it is accepted by Bunsen {Blbelwerk, Gen. 
X. and Alius). It certainly occupies a position in 
which we should expect to find traces of Sabtah, 
where are traces of Cushite tribes in very early 
times, on their way, as we hold, from their earlier 
colonies in Ethiopia to the Euphrates. 

Gesenius, who sees in Cush only Ethiopia, "has 
no doubt that Sabtah should be compared with 2a- 
/Sar, 2a;8a, 2a/3ai' (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 hunted elephants. 
Amongst the ancient translators, Pseudojonathan 

saw the true meaning, rendering it "^mX3D, for 

which read ""H^KlD, i. e. the Sembritse, whom 
Strabp (liic. cit. p. 786) places in the same region. 
Josephus (Ant. i. 6, § 1) understands it to be the 
inhabitants of Astabora " (Gesenius, ed. Tregelles, 
s. v.). Here the etymology of Sabtah is compared 
plausibly with 'S.a^a.T; but when probability is 
against his being Ibund, 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 Rabbinical authorities which he 
quotes we place no value. It only remains to add 
that JMichaelis {Suppl. p. 1712) removes Sabtah to 
Ceuta opposite Gibraltar, called in Arabic Sebtah, 

o "■ 
XJCjUa< (comp. llarasid, s. v.); and that Hochart 
(Phale;/, i. 114, 115, 252 ft. ), while he mentions 
Sabbatha, prefers to place Sabtah near the western 
»hore of the Persian Gulf, with the Saphtha of 
Ptolemy, the name also of an island in that gulf. 

E S. P. 

^3I|15P [see above]: 2a3a^a«:a, 2e3e0axa; 
[Alex, in Gen., 'Sa^aKaOa; V at. in I Chr., Se/Se- 
<a6a'.\ Sabdtncha, Siibnthfc/in, Gen. x. 7, 1 (.'hr. 
1 9). The filth in order of the sons of C'ush, 
whoss sstllements would probalily be near the Per- 
uan Gull, where are those o^ Kaamah. the next 


before him in the order of the Cushites. [Raa 
MAH, Dedan, Sheua.] 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 Bunsen, Bllieho., Gen 
X. and Alius) argues that he should be placed b 
Carman.ia, on the Persian shore of the gulf, com 
paring Sabtechah with the city of Samydace ol 
Steph. Byz. (2a^iSa(C7j or 2a^lVKdSr| of Ptol. vi 
8, 7). This etymoloiry 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^S^ST, 
Zinyitani), E. S. P. 

SA'CAR ("13t2> \liire, reward]: Axdp; Alex. 
2axap- Sacluir). 1. A Hararite, father of Ahiam, 
one of David's mighty men (1 Chr. xi. 35). In 
2 Sam. xxiii. 33 he is called Shakar, but Ken- 
nicott regards Sacar as the correct rea<ling. 

2. (2axap ; [Vat. 2aiX"P ! ^^'^'^- ^ax^ap-]) 
The fourth son of Obed-edom (1 Chr. xxvi. 4). 

SACKBUT (SD3P, Dan. iii. 5; SD|l£r, 
Dan. iii. 7, 10, 15: cra/xlivKri • sambuca). The 
rendering in the A. V. of the Chaldee sabheca. 
If this musical instrument be the same as the 
Greek aafx^vKt) and Latin Sfimbucfi," the English 
translation is entirely wrong. The sackbut was a 
wind-instrument; the sambuca was ]jlayed with 
strings. Mr. Chappell says (Pop. 3fus. i. 35), 
" The sackbut was a bass trumpet with a slide, like 
the modern trombone." It had a deep note ac- 
cording to Drayton (Polyolbion, iv. 365 ) : — 

"The hoboy, sa^but deep, recorder, and the Hute." 
The sambuca was a triangular instrument with 
four or more strings played with the fingers. 
According to Athen.*us (xiv- 633), Masurius de- 
scribed it as having a shrill tone; and Euphorion, 
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 Samhyx, and to Sibylla its first use (.\then. 
xiv. 637). Juba, in the 4th book of his Theatrical 
History, says it was disco\ered in Syria, but Nean- 
thes of Cyzicum, in the first book of the Hours, 
assigns it to the poet Ibycus of Rhegium (Athen. 
iv. 77). This last tradition is followed by Snidas, 
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 l)arbarous. Isidore of Seville ( Orig. 
iii. 20) appears to regard it as a wind instrument, 
for he connects it with the sanilnicus, or elder, ■» 
kind of light wood of which pipes were made. 

The sambuca was early known at Rome, for 
Plautus (Stick, ii. 2, 57) mentions the women who 
played it (sambucce, or sambucisfrim, as they are 
called in Livy, xxxis. 6). It was a favorite among 
the Greeks (Polyb. v. 37), and the Rhodian women 
appear to have been celebrated for their skill n 
this instrument (Athen. iv. 120). 

There was an engine called sambuca used m 
siege operations, which derived its name from the 
musical instrument, because, .according to Athe- 
nseus (xiv. 634), when raised it had the form of 
a ship and a ladder combined in one. 

W. A. W. 

« Compare ambubaia, from Syr. S3"13S, abbhbSt 
a flute, where the m occupies the place of the dasnah 



SACKCLOTH (pti?: (xaKKos- saccus). A 
toarse texture, of a dark color, made of goats' 
hair (Is. 1. 3; Rev. vi. 12), and resembling the 
cilicium of the Romans. It was used (1) for 
making sacks, the same word describing both the 
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 cctlwneth (Jon. 
lii. 6) in Heu of the outer garment. The rube 
probably resembled a sack in shape, and fitted close 
to the person, as we may infer from the application 
of the term chayar" to the process of putting it 
on (2 Sam. iii. 31; Y^. vii. 18, &c.). It was con- 
fined by a girdle 3f similar material (Is. iii. 24). 
Sometimes it was worn throughout the night (1 K. 
sxi. 27). W. L. B. 

SACRIFICE. The peculiar features of each 
kind of sacrifice are refei-red 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 — 

(rt.) nn312, mincliah, from the obsolete root 

n3J2, "to give;" used in Gen. xxxii. 13, 20, 21, 
of a gift from Jacob to Esau (LXX. Siopov); in 2 
Sam. viii. 2, 6 (^evia), in 1 K. iv. 21 {Sdpa), in 2 
K. xvii. 4 {fj.ava6.), of a tribute from a vassal 
king; in Gen. iv. 3, 5, of i sacrifice generally 
{.nipov and Qvffia., indifferently); and in Lev. ii. 
1, 4, 5, 6, joined with the word korbnn, of an 
unbloody sacrifice, or " meat-ofTering " (generally 
^Sipov Quffia)- Its derivation and usage point to 
that idea of sacrifice, which represents it as an 
eucharistic gift to God our King. 

(b.) (]2"?p korbnn, derived from the root S"^!^, 
"to approach," or (in Hiphil) to "make to ap- 
proach; " used with minch'ih in Lev. ii. 1, 4, 5, 6, 
(LXX. S&pov dvaia), generally rendered Sipou 
(see Mark vii. 11, Kop^av, '6 iari Saipou) or trpoa- 
^6pa. The idea of a gift hardly seems inherent 
in the root ; which rather points to sacrifice, as a 
Bymbol of communion or covenant between God 
and man. 

(c.) (nS^, zebnch, derived from the root HS^, 
to "slaughter animals," especially to "slay in sacri- 
fice," refers emphatically to a bloody sacrifice, one 


in wlich the shedding of blood is the eseeutial 
idea. Thus it is opposed to minchnh, in Ps. xl. 6 
(dvaiav koI ■Kpoacpupaf), and to ('/((/( (the whole 
bumt-oftering) in Ex. x. 25, xviii. 12, &c. With 
it the expiatory idea of sacrifice is naturally con- 

Distinct from these general terms, and often 
a])pended to them, are the words denoting special 
kinds of sacrifice: — 

((/.) n^"13?, olah (generally oXoKavraiixa), the 
" whole burnt-offering." 

(e.) D^ti.', shelem (dvaia a. rrjpiov), used fre- 
quently with nHjT, and sometimes called ^2~ir, 
the "peace- " or " thank-oflfering." 

(/.) nStSn, chattath (generally irepl ajxap- 
Tios)i the " sin-ofTering." 

(^.) Dtt'W dsfiam (generally ■ir\rifj.fxe\eia),ihe 
" trespass-offering." 

For the examination of the derivation and niean- 
incr of these, see each under its own head. 

II. (A.) Origin of Sacrifice. 

In tracing the history of sacrifice, from its first 
beghming to its perfect development in the Mosaic 
ritual, we are at once met by the long-disputed 
question, as to the orighi of sncrifce ; whether it 
arose from a instinct of man, sanctioned 
and guided by God. or whether it was the subject 
of some distinct primeval revelation. 

It is a question, the importance of which has 
probalily 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, ^\'hethe^ it 
was first enjoined l)y 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 
lie treated at all, except in connection with some 
general theory of the method of primeval revela- 
tion, but certainly one which does not affect the 
authority and the meaning of the rite itself. 

The great difficulty in the theory which refers 
it to a distinct command 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 

« -inn. 

h See, for example (as in Faber's Origin of Sncrifire), 
fbe elaborate reasoning on the translation of nStSH 
n Gen. iv. 7. Even supposing the version, a " sin- 
effering coucheth at the door," to be correct, on the 
ground of geaeral usage of the word, of the curious 
rersion of the L.XX., and of the remarkable gram- 
Batical construction of the masculine participle, with 
he feminine noun (as referring to the fact that the 

sin-offering was actually a male), still it does not settle 
the matter. The Lord even then speaks of sacrifice 
as existing, and as kuowu 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 Divin* 
command as to the special occasion of its e.xercise 
is contradicted hy the general definition if it giren is 
V. 1. 


it least forbids the assertion of it, as of a positive 
ind important doctrine. 

Nor is the fact of the mysterious and super- 
aatural character of the doctrine of Atonement, 
with which the sacrifices of the O. T. are expressly 
connected, any conclusive argument on this side 
af the question. All allow that the eucharistic 
and deprecatory ideas of sacrifice are perfectly 
uatural to man. The higher view of its expiatory 
character, dependent, as it is, entirely on its typical 
nature, appears but t^radually in Scripture. It is 
veiled imder other ideas in the case of the patri- 
archal sacrifices. It is first distinctly mentioned 
in the Law (Lev. xvii. 11, &c.); but even then the 
theory of the sin offering, and of the classes of 
Bins to which it I'eferred, 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 unlolded. It is as likely that it pleased 
God gradually to superadd the higher idea to an 
institution, derived \>y man from the lower ideas 
(which must eventually find their justification in 
the higher \ as that He originally commanded the 
institution wMfen 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 existed, 
as a natural phenomenon before the Flood. AYhat 
God sets his seal to. He makes a part of his revela- 
tion, whatever its origin may be. It is to be 
noticed (see Warburton's Dlv. Leg. ix. c. 2) that, 
except in Gen. xv. 9, the method of patriarchal 
sacrifice is left free, without an\- 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 much of its distinction from heathen 
sacrifice depended. The inference is at proli- 
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 saciifices, recorded in 
Scripture before the establisliment of the Law, we 
find that the words specially denoting expiatory 

sacrifice (HSTSn and DlfS) 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 viinchah, 
although in the case of the latter it was a bloody 
sacrifice. (So in Heb. xi. 4 the word Bva'ia is 
explained 1-iy the roiy Siipois below.) In the case 
of both it would appear to have lieen eucharistic, 
iind the distinction between the ofterers to have 
lain in their "faith" (Heb. xi. 4). AVhether that 
faith of Abel referred to the promise of the Re- 
deemer, and was connected with any idea of the 
typical meaning of sacrifice, or whether it was a 
wmple and humble faith in the unseen God, as the 
^iver and pron.iser of all good, we are not autnor- 
Ized by Scripture to decide. 

The sacrifice of Noah after the Flood (Gen. viii. 
|0) is called bumt-offering (odih). This sacrifice 
I Mjressly 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-she1ia (xi-»i. 25), 
and by -Jacob at Shechem (xxxiii. 20), und in 
.Jacob's setting up and anohiting of the pillar at 
Bethel (xxviii 18. xxxv. 14). The sacrifice (zebnch) 
of .lacob at JNIizpah also marks a covenant with 
Laban, to which God is called to be a witness 
and a party. In all these, therefore, the jirom- 
inent idea seems to have been what is called the 
fc(hi-ative, 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 ha\e been of the same nature as 
before: the voluntary surrender of an only son on 
Abraham's part, 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 pos'tiou. 

In the liurnt-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 in the words of Moses to Pharaoh, 
as to the necessity of sacrifice in the wilderness 
(Fx. X. 25), where sacrifice (zehich) is distinguished 
from burnt-offering. 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 hy 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-offering in the emphatic use of the blood, 
which (after the fii'st celebration) was poured at 
the bottom of the altar (see Lev. iv. 7), and in the 
care taken that none of the flesh should remain 
till the morning (see Ex. xii. 10, xxxiv. 25). It 
was unliiie 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 tbrnial 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 solemn 
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 entering into covenant 
with God, the idea of which the sin- .\ud tresp.^8»• 
offerings were afterwards the symbols. 



The Law of Leviticus now unfolds distinctly the 
farious forms of sacrifice : — 

(a.) The burnt-offering. Sf.lf-dkdicatorv. 

(b.) The meat-ajferiiiff {unbhioily) ) Eucharis- 

The jjeace-offmng (blovdy) ) tic. 

(c.) The stn-offtrinn ] „ 

Ti , 'Jr ■ \ Expiatory. 

1 he tresjjass-offennr/ ) 

To these may be added, — 

(d.) 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 eflScacious the prayer 
of the people. 

In the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Lev. 
viii.) we find these ofl^ered, in what became ever 
afterwards the appointed order : first came the 
Bin-oflferiiig, to prepare access to God; next the 
burnt-offering, to mark their dedication to his 
service; and thirdly the meat-offering 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-oftering. 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 Leviticus 
takes the rite of sacrifice for granted (see Lev. i. 2, 
ii. 1, &c., "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 \ictim was carefully 
prescribed, so as to preserve tlie ideas syml)olized, 
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 nieet 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," 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 tiie heathen nations, especially 
from Egypt, in order to guard against worse super- 
stition and positive idolatry. The argument is 
mainly based (see Warb. Dio. Leg. iv., sect. vi. 2) 
on Ez. XX. 2.5, and similar references in the 0. and 
N. T. to the nullity of all mere ceremonial. Taken 
as an explanation of the theory of s;icrifice, it is 
weak and; it labors under two fatal 
difficulties, the historical fact of the primeval exist- 
ence of gacrlfice, and its typical reference to the 

a For instances of infringement of this rule uncen- 
lured, gfte .ludg. ii. 5, vi. 26, xiii. 19; 1 Sam. xi. 15, 
rrt. 5 ; 2 Sam. vi. 13 ; 1 K. iii. 2, 3. Most of tliess 


one Atonement of Christ, which was foieordaiced 
from the \'ery beginning, and had been already 
typified, as, for example, in the sacrifice of Isaas. 
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 cravinir 
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 
with an ever-increasing clearness. ^ 

(D.) Post-Mosaic Sacrifices. 

It will not he 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. G-'3), by Jehoiada after the death of Athaliah 
(2 Chr. xxiii. 18), and liy Ilezekiah 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, which 
were a sacred national feast to the people at the 
I'able of their Great King. 

The regular sacrifices in the Temple service 
were : — 

(a.) Burnt-Offerings. 

1. The daily burnt-offerings (Ex. xxix. 38-42). 

2. The double burnt-offerings on the Sabbath 
(Num. xxviii. 9, 10). 

3. The burnt-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. 
x.xix. 40, 41). 

2. The shew-bread (twelve loaves with frankin- 
cense), renewed every Salibath (Lev. 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-offerhig (a kid) each new moon (Num. 
xxviii. 15). 

2. Sin-offerings at the Passover, Pentecost, Feast 
of Trumpets, and Taljernacles (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.). 

((/.) Incense. 

1. The morning and evening incense (Ex. xxx, 

cases are special, some authorized by special com 
niand ; but the Law probably did not attain to Its fuV 
strictness till the foundation of the Temple. 


of the "talile 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, liut, 
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 l)y sacrifice to be restored 
The emphatic "shedding of the blood," as the es- 
sential part of the sacrifice, while the flesh wa» 
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 hini : 
still, in either case it contained the idea tha( 
"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 he 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-offering, a self-devotion, and an atonement. 
In fact, it brings out, clearly and distinctly, the 
ideas which in heathenism were uncertain, vague, 
and perverted. 

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 ],aw, 
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 only, 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. x\i.) It is needless 
to remark, how this essential difference 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 dLstinction is closely con- 
nected with ihis, inasmuch as it shows sacrifice t« 

» S«e Magce's Diss, on Sacr., vol. i. diss, v., and j Sncrifioe, quoted in notes 23, 26, to Tliomson's Bamp 
boat von Lasaul.t'8 Treatise ou CJreek and Roman i ttjn Lectures, 1853. 


2. The incense on the Great Day of Atonement 
;Lev. xvi. 12). 

Besides these public sacrifices, tliere were offer- 
ings of the people for themselves indiv'dually; at 
the purification of women (Lev. xii.), the presenta- 
tion of the first-born, and circumcision of all male 
children, the cleansing of the leprosy (Lev. xiv.) or 
any uncleanness (i^ev. 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-ofterings. 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 tlie 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- 
offerhig occupies the most important place, the 
burnt-offering comes next, and the meat-offering or 
peace-oftering last of all. The second could only 
be offered after the first had been accepted; the 
third was only a sul)sidiary 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-otfering 
was for the first time explicitly set forth. This is 
but natural, tiiat the deepest ideas should be the 
last in order of development. 

It is also obvious, that those who believe in the 
unity of the 0. and N. T., and the typical nature 
of the Mosaic Covenant, must view the type in 
constant reference to the antitype, and be prepared 
therelbre 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 per- 
fectly interpreted in the N. T. {e. y. 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 dindy 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, 
■"t is clear, that the sacrifice was often looked upon 
as a gift or tribute to the gods: an idea which (for 
example) nms through all Greek literature, from 
the simple conception in Homer to tiie caricatures 
of Aristophanes or Lucian, against the perversion 
of which St. Paul protested at Athens, when he 
declared that God Jieet/ef/ nothing at human hands 
(Acts xvii. 25). It is also clear that sacrifices 
«'ere used as prayers, to obtain benefits, or to avert 
wrath ; and that this idea was cornq)ted into the 
superstition, denounced by heathen satirists as well 
as by Hebrew prophets, that by them the gods' 
fevor could be purchased for the wicked, or their 
■'envy" be averted from the prosperous. On the 
>ther hand, that they were regarded as thank-ofter- 
ngs, and the feasting on their flesh as a partaking 



be a scheme proceedini; from God, and, in his 
foreknowledge, connected with the one centra! fact 
of all human history. It is to be found in the 
typical character of all Jewish sacrifices, on which, 
as the Epistle to the Hebrews argues, all their 
efficacy depended. It must be remembered that, 
like other ordinances of the Law, they had a 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 e.tample, the 
sin-offering was an atonement to the national law 
for moral ofienses of negligence, which in " pre- 
Bumptuous," i. e. deliberate and willful crime, was 
rejected (see Num. xv. '27-31 ; and comp. Heb. x. 
26, 27). On the oth^ 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 promised 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. I\, especially the Epistle to the Hebrews. All 
had relation, under different aspects, to a Covenant 
between God and man. 

I"he SiN-OFFEKiNG 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 (K^'lp). 
This latter point marked the distinction from the 
peace-oflering, and showed that the sacrificer had 
been rendered unworthy of communion with God. 
llie 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 &cfr) "accursed ; " but 
',he primitive meaning " clean," and the usage of the 
irord, seem decisive against this. LXX. ayCa (vici 
ieaea. s. v.). 

6 In Lev. i. 4, it is said to "atone" (^22, «'. «. to 


mercy. This is seen most clearly in the cctb- 
monial of the Day of Atonement, when, after the 
sacrifice of the one goat, the high-priest's hand 'Has 
laid on the head of the scape-goat — which was 
the other part of the sin-offering — with confession 
of the sins of the people, that it might visibly bear 
them away, and so bring out explicitly, what in 
other sin-offerings was but implied. Accordingly 
we find (see quotation from the Mishua in Outr. 
Be Sacr. i. c. xv., § 10) that, in all cases, it was 
the custom for the offerer to lay his hand on the 
head of the sin-offering, to confess generally or 
specially his sins, and to say, " Let this be my ex- 
piation." Beyond all doubt, the sin-offeinug 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 suffering 
of an appointed victim. The reference of the 
Baptist to a " Lamb of God who taketh away the 
sins of the world," was one understood and hailsd 
at once by a " true Israelite." 

The ceremonial and meaning of the BuRNT- 
OFFEKING 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 solenm sacrifices, no burnt-offering 
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 pre.sent our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and 
acceptable. to God." 

The Meat-offerixgs, 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, independent 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-oft'ering 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 ^ ord," in 
the gifts which his mercy had bestowed, of which 
a choice portion was oflTered to Him, to his servants, 
and to his poor (see Deut. xiv. 28, 29). To this. 

"cover," and so to "do away;" LXX. e^iKda-aa-dai). 
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. ^ 
17, etc., quoted by Outram.) 


new 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 coinple.K idea, involving the propitiatory, the 
dedicatory, and the euchari,stic 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- 
donrinating 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 which the regular burnt-offering should 
have impressed upon them as their daily thought 
and duty. It is therefore to this point that the 
teacliing 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 lambs, or goats; " 
that to those who " cease to do evil and learn to 
do well, .... though their sins be as 
scarlet, they shall be white as snow." Jeremiah 
reminds them (vii. 22, 2-3) that the Lord did not 
"command burnt-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— 1-i) against the pollution of God's 
name by offerings of those whose hearts were with 
their idols. Hosea sets torth 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 burnt-offerings." 
Amos (v. 21-27) puts it even more strongly, that 
God "hates" their sacrifices, unless "judgment 
run down like water, and righteousness like a 
mighty stream." And Jlicah (vi. 6-8) answers 
the question which lies at the root of sacrifice, 
"Wherewith sliall I come before the Lord?" by 
the words, " What doth the Lord require of thee, 
but to do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly 
with thy God'?" All these passages, and many 
others, are directed to one oliject — not to dis- 
courage sacrifice, but to purify and spiritualize the 
feelings of the offerers. 

The same truth, here enunciated from without, 
is recogiuzed from within by the Psalmist. Thus 
he says, in Ps. xl. 6-11, " Sacrifice and meat- 
offering, burnt-offering and sin-offering, Thou hag'-. 
not required;" and contrasts with them the hom- 
ige of the heart — "mine ears hast Thou bored," 
and tlie active service of life — " Lo ! I come to do 
Thy will, God." L. Ps. 1. 13, U, sacrifice is 
tontrasted with prayer and adoration (comp. Ps. 
cxli. 2): "Thinkest thou that I will bulls' flesh, 
tad drink the blood of goats? Offer unto (iod 
SiMvksgiving, pay thy vows to the Most Highest, 


and call upon me in time of trouble." Iiv Ps. IL 
16, 17, it is similarly contrasted with true repent- 
ance of the he'art : " The sacrifice of ( lOd is a 
troubled spirit, a broken and a contrit( heart." 
Yet here also the next verse sliows tliaf sacrifice 
was not superseded, but purified: " Then shalt 
thou be pleased with burnt-offerings and oblations; 
tiien shall they offer 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 bebw it, 
taken fcr granted by the Prophets as by the r hols 
people, but still enveloped in mystery unt. th* 
Antitype should come to make all clear. For th» 
evolution of this doctrine we must look to the N. 
1'. ; the preparation for it by the Prophets was (so 
to speak) negative, the pointing out the nullity 
of all other propitiations in themselves, and then 
leaving the warnings of the conscience and the 
cravings of the heart to fix men's hearts on the 
better Atonement to come. 

Without entering directly on the great subject 
of the Atonement (which would be foreign to the 
scope of this article), it will be sufficient to refer 
to the connection, establislied in the N. T., between 
it and the sacrifices of the jNIosaic system. 'I"o do 
this, we need do little more than analyze the Epis- 
tle to the Hebrews, which contains tlie key of the 
whole sacrificial doctrine. 

In the first place, it follows the prophetic books 
by stating, in the most eniph.atic terms, the in- 
trinsic nuUity of all mere material sacrifices. The 
"gifts and sacrifices" of the first Tabernacle could 
" never make tlie sacrificers perfect in conscience " 
(.KUTO, avyeiSrjcnv); they were but "carnal ordi- 
nances, imposed on them till the time of reforma- 
tion " iSiopdiiaecos) (Heb. ix. 9, 10). The very 
fact of their constant repetition is said to prove 
this imiterfection, which depends on the funda^ 
mental principle, " that it is impossible that the 
blood of bulls and goats should take away sin " 
(x. i). But it does not lead us to infer, that they 
.actually had no spiritual efficacy, if oflfered in re- 
pentance and faith. On the contrary, the object 
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 vrorld;'' or (as it is more strikingly ex- 
pressed in Rev. xiii. 8) "slain from the foundation 
of the world." Tlie 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 s.acrificial 
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- 
Ofkering.] The whole of the Mosaic description 
of sacrifices clearly implies some real spii'itual bene- 
fit to be derived from them, besides tlie temporal 
[jrivileges belonging to the national theocracy, 
•lust 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, sc 
that men had under the Law more than they had 
by the Law; so it must be said of the Levitica] 



sacrifices. They could convey nothiug in them- 
selves; yet, as types, they might, if accepted by a 
true, though necessarily imperfect, faith, be means 
of conveying in some degree the blessings of the 

This typical character of all sacrifice being thus 
set forth, the next point dwelt upon is the union 
in our Lord's person of the priest, the offerer, and 
the sacrifice. [Priest.] The imperfection of all 
sacrifices, which made them, in themsehes, 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 Ciod, 
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 lleb. V. 1-4), a true Priest, who shall, 
as being One with man, offer the sacrifice, and 
accept it, as being One with God. It is shown 
that this imperfection, which necessarily existed in 
all types, without which indeed they would have 
been substitutes, not preparations for the Antitype, 
was altogether done away in Him; that in the 
first place He, as the representative of the whole 
human race, offered no arbitraril}-- chosen victim, 
but the willing sacrifice of his own blood ; that, in 
the second, He was ordained by God, by a solenm 
oath, to be a high-priest forever, " after the order 
of IMelchizedek," one " hi 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 made 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" {lAatTfios or 
iKacTTiipiov, Rom. iii. 25; 1 John ii. 2); a "ran- 
som" {ano\vTpbi(Tis, Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30, 
&c.); which, if words mean anything, must imply 
*hat 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 
Ws sacrifice is offered once for all, never to be imi- 
tated or repeated. 

Now this view of the Atonement is set forth in 

a It may be remembered that devices, sometimes 
tudicrous, sometimes horrible, were adopted to make 
'ae victim appear willing; and that voluntary sacri- 


the Epistle to the Hebrews, as typified by the sin- 
offisring; especially by that particular sin-off'ering 
with which the high prie.-,t 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 \essels 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 coni[iared to the burning of the 
public or jiriestly sin offerings without the camp 
(Heb. xiii. 10-13). Tlie altar of sacrifice {Ovai- 
aaTrfpiov} 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 hght. 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 oflTered up prayers and supplications . 
and was heard, in that He feared; though He were 
it Son, yet learned He obedience by the things 
which he suffered: and being made perfect" (by 
that suffering; see ii. 10), " He became the author 
of salvation to all them that obey Him" (v. 7, 8, 
9). In this view his death is not the principal 
object; we dwell rather on his lowly incarnation, 
and his life of humility, temptation, 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, bur to the agony in Gethsem- 
ane. which bowed his human will to the vrill of 
his Fatlier. 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 0. T., 
and especially (see Heb. x. 6-9) the words of Ps. 
xl. 6, &c., w'hich contrast with material sacrifice the 
"doing thj 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 tliey 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 

fice, such as that of the Decii, was held to be th» 
noblest of all. 


tao'ifice, holy and acceptable to God,'' inasmuch 
as we are all (see v. 5) one with Christ, and mem- 
bers of his body. lu this sense it is tliat we are 
gaid to be "crucified with Christ" (Ual. ii. 20; 
Rom. vi. 6); to have "the sufferings of Christ 
abound in us" (2 Cor. i. 5); even to " fill up that 
which is behind" {to. vcrTeprifiaTa) thereof (Col. i. 
24); and to "be offered" (o-7re;/5eo-9ai) " upon the 
sacrifice of the faith " of others (I'hil. 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- 
oftering the sin-offering will to us be unavailing. 

With thesa views of our Lord's sacrifice on earth, 
as typified in the Levitical sacrifices on the outer 
altar, is also to be connected the offering of his in- 
tercession for us in heaven, whkh 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 oft'eiing of incense in 
the Most Holy Place by the high-priest on the 
Great Day of Atonement (Heb. is. 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 tlie Great Interced- 
ing High -priest. That intercession is the strength 
of our prayers, and " with the smoiie of its in- 
cense " they rise up to heaven (Kev. 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, wliich 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, througli the peace won 
by the sin-offering, we have already Ijeen enabled 
to dedicate ourselves to God, and they are, as it 
were, the ornaments and accessories of that self- 

Such is a lirief sketch of the doctrine of Sacri- 
fice. It is seen to have been deeply rooted in 
men's hearts ; and to have been, I'roni the begin- 
nini;, accepted and sanctioned l)y God, and niade 
by Him one channel 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-dedicatury, 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 tlie antiquarian part of the subject valuable 
information may be found in Spencer, Be Le(/i/jus 
BeOneoruiii, and Outram, De Sucrificiis. 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 Sricrifice ; and Warburton, Die. 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, Edinb. 186;i, in Clark's 
Foreign Tlieol. Lihr.\ comp. BiU. Sacra, ix. 27- 
51] ; and the catalogue of authorities in Winer's 
Rtalwortertt., " Opfer." But it needs for its con- 
siderntiou little but the careful study of Scripture 
'taelf A. B. 




* For otlier works on this subject see the refer- 
ences under Le\' incus (Amer. ed.), vol. ii. p. 
1653 b, and the list prefixed to the work of Kurtz, 
just referred to. See also an article by Dr. G. R. 
Xoyes, 'J'he Scripture Doctrine of Sacrifice, in 
the Christian Kxaminer (Boston) for vSept. 1855, 
and the learned and elaborate discussion of the 
suliject in Kahsch's Leviticus, part i. (Lond. 1867), 
pp 1-416. A. 

SADAMI'AS (Sadanias). The name of 
SnALi.uji, one of the ancestors of Ezra, is so writ- 
ten in 2 Esdr. i. 1. 

SA'DAS CAp7oi; Alex. Ao-rao; [Aid. 2a5cis:] 
Archad). Azt.Ai) (1 Esdr. v. 13; comp. Ezr ii. 
12). I'he form Sadas is retained from the Geneva 
version. [This form, it will be observed, is the 
reading of the Aldiue edition. — A.] 

SADDE'US (AoSSaToj; [Vat. AoSaioy;] -A-lex. 
AoASaios; [Aid. AaSSalos:] Loddeiis). "lDDO,the 
chief at the place Casiphia," is called in 1 Esdr. viii. 
45, " Saddeus the captain, wlio was in the place of 
the treasury." In 1 Esdr. viii. 46 the name ia 
written " Daddeus " in the A. V., as in the Ge- 
neva Version of both passages. 

* SADDLE. [Camel; Furniture; Horse; 

SAD'DUC (2o55oD«:os; [Vat. S.a.dZovXovKo^, 
Mai, Errata :] Sadoc). Zadoic the liigh-prieat, 
ancestor of Ezra (1 Esdr. viii. 2). 

SAD'DUCEES {^aUovKalor- Sadduciei: 
Matt. iii. 7, xvi. 1, 6, 11, 12, xxii. 23, 34: Mnrk 
xii. 18; Luke xx. 27; Acts iv. 1, v. 17, xxiii. 6, 7, 
8). A religious party or school among the .lewg 
at the time of Christ, who denied that the oral law 
was a revelation of (iod to the Israelites, ami who 
deemetl the written law alone to be obligatory on 
tlie nation, as of Divine authority. Although fre- 
quently mentioned in the New Testament in con- 
junction with the Pliarisees, 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 Phari.sees in 
insidiously asking for a sign from heaven (Matt, 
xvi. 1, 4, 6), Christ never assailed the Sadducees 
with the same liitter denunciations which he ut- 
ters the Pharisees; and they do not, like 
tlie 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 
Chri.-itianity, destined to produce such a moment- 
ous revolution in the opinions of mankind, issued 
from .Juda'a. 

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 Geiger 
suggests, is not unimportant in reference to the 
criticism of the Gospels ( Urschrifl und Ueherset- 
zungen der Bibel, p. 107). Moreover, while St. 
Paul had been a Pharisee and was the son of a 
Pharisee; while Josephus vvas a Pharisee, and the 
Mishna was a Pharisaical diijest of Pharisaical 

•li i' 


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 liearing 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 Ijiglaiid would be content to accept the state- 
ments of an opponent as giving a correct view of 
its ojiinions. 

(Jrlyin 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 i'ar towards ensuring correct 
ideas respecting the position of the Sadducees in the 
■Jewish state. The sulject, however, is involved in 
great difficulties. The Hebrew word by which they 
are called in the JNIishna is Tsulukim, the plural of 
Tsddok, which undoul]tedly means "just," or 
" righteous," but which is never used in the liible 
except as a [jroper name, and in the Antjlican Ver- 
sion is always translated " Zadok " (2 K. xv. 33; 
2 Sam. viii. 17; 1 Cbr. 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 ilishna {Acotli i.) as having received 
the oral law from Simon the Just, the last of the 
men of the (ireat Synagogue. It is recorded of 
this Antigonus that he used to say: " Ue 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, «. v. P'l'^^* ' 

a Aruch, or ^Artic {"^y^VH), means "arranged,' 
or " set in order." The author of this- work was an- 
other Rjibbi Nathan Ben Jechier, president of the Jew- 
ish Academy at Rome, who died in 1106. A. D. (See 
Bartolocci, Bibt. Kabb. iv. 261.) The reference to 
Rabbi Nathan, author of the treatise on the Avot/i, is 

made in the Aruch under the word ^^D1i"T"3. The 
treatise itself was published in a Latin translation by 
F. Tayler, at Loudon, 1657. The original passage re- 
specting Zadok's disciples is printed b.v Geiger in He- 
brew, and translated by him. Ursc/irift, etc., p. 105. 

♦ Dr. Giusburg, in his valuable article Sadducees, 
in the Sd editiou of Kitto"s Cyrlop. of Bibt. Lit. iii. 731, 
note, corrects Mr. Twi.stIeton"s statements respecting 
" the earliest mention " of Rabbi Nathan, and the 
time when he lived. He says : " This Rabbi Nathan 
or Nathan Ita-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 no7'(e HtbraicoB on Mnlth. iii. 8; mud 
the Note of Maimonides in Surenhusius's Mishna.^ 
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 Ursc/iriJ'l, 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 Avoth, or " Fathers." But the 
age in which this Rabbi Nathan lived is uncertain 
(Bartolocci, Hibliotliecn Magna Rabbinica, vol. iii. 
p. 770), and the earliest mention of him is in a 
well-known Rabbinical dictionary called the Aruch," 
which was completed about the year 1105, a. d 
The following are the words of the above-mentioned 
Rabbi Nathan -of the Avoth. 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 saving? 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 foi-mer from 
Zadok, and the latter from Baithos." Now it is 
to be ob.served on this passage that it does not jus- 
tify the once current behef 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 tor 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 
re.serve, that Rabbi Nathan of the Avoth, for aught 
that has e\er 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 I'rince of the Captivity in Babylon, 
and his marvellous knowledge of the law, both diTine 
and human, . . he was created vicar of ".he patri- 
arch Simon II. b. Gamaliel II., A. D. 140-163, or presi- 
dent of the tribunal (]''T n^3 SS). He is fre- 
quently quoted in the Talmud as a profound 'Scholar 
of the law {Hurajoth, 13 b ; Bciba 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 Mis/itiath dt 
Rabbi Nathan, and which R;ibbi .lehudah 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 Ai-Oth of Kabbi 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 GeigM 
respecting the origin of the Sadducees. A. 



pearance of the Saxlducees as a party in Jewish his- 
tory, and that he quotes no authority of any kind 
for his account of their origin, it seems reasonable 
to reject tliis Kabbi Natlian's narration as unwor- 
thy of credit. Another ancient suggestion concern- 
insr the brigin of the name " Sadducees " is in Kpi- 
phanius {Adversus H(ereses, xiv.),Vi'ho 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 unsatisfactory 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 'I'saddikim or Zaddikites, which 
would have been the regular Hebrew adjective for 
the "Just," or '* Righteous " ; and 2d]y. While it 
evidently implies that they once held the doctrines 
of an ancient priest, Zadok, who is even called their 
chief or master (eVio-raTTjs), 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 sulisequently 
departed from. The unsatisflictoriness 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 I'ositheus (aTrScrwaa/xa uvres airh Ao- 
ffideov) ; for Dositheus was a heretic who lived about 
the time of Christ (Origen, contra Celsum, lil). i. c. 
17 ; Clemens, Rtcognit. ii. 8 ; Photius, Bibliuih. c. 
x.^cx.), and thus, if Epiphanius was correct, the 
opinions characteristic of the Sadducees were pro- 
ductions of the Christian era; a supposition con- 
trary to the express declaration of the Pharisee 
Josephus, and to a notorious fact of history, the 
coimection of Hyrcanus with the Sadducees more 
than 100 years before Christ. (See Josephus, Ant. 
xiii. 9, § 6, and xviii. 1, § 2, where observe the 
phrase s/c rov iravv apxa-iov . . .) Hence Epipha- 
nius's explanation of the origin of the word Saddu- 
cees must be rejected with that of Rablji Nathan 
of the An'itlt. In these circumstances, if recourse 
is had to conjecture, the first point to be consid- 
ered is whetiier the word is likely to have arisen 
from the meaning of ''righteousness," or from the 
name of an individual. This must be decided in 
favor of the latter alternative, inasmuch as the wcjrd 
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- 
porLance, 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. •)2— 1.3). This Zadok was tenth in 
descent, according to the genealogies, from the 
high- priest Aaron; and whatever maj' be the cor- 
»ect explanation of the statement in the 1st Hook 
■f Kings, ii. 35, that Solomon put him in the room 
if Abiathar, although on previous occasions he 



« According to the Mishna, San/ied. iv. 2, no one 
iras " clean," in the Levitical sense, to act as a judge 
.n capitiU trials, e.\cept priests, Levites, and Israelites 
»bose daughters might uiarry priests. This again 

had, when named with him, been always mentioned 
first (2 Sam. xv. 35, six. 11; cf. viii. 17), his line 
of priests appears to have had decided 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 .lehovah, when 
the children of Israel went astray (Ezek. xl. 4(5, 
xliii. 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 .\cts of the Apostles v. 
17, it is said, " T/ieri t/ie h'ujh-priest rose, ami all 
they that were inth him, which is the sect of the 
Sadducees, 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. 
104r). To these were afterwards attached all who 
for any reason reckoned themselves as beloui^ing to 
the aristocracy; such, for example, as the fannlies 
of the high-priest ; who had obtained consideration 
under the d3nasty of Herod. 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 nqw 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 leading tenet of their opponents. 
As the Pharisees asserted, so the Sadducees denied, 
that the Israelites were in possession of an Oral 
Law transmitted to them by Moses. The manner 
in which the Pharisees may have gained acceptance 
for their own view is noticed elsewhere in this work 
[vol. iii. p. 2474] ; but, for an equitable estimate 
of the Sadducees, it is proper to bear in mind 
emphatically bow 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, thougd it 
is older than Christianity, and has been the sup- 
port and consolation of the .lews 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 oflered in the text, of th« 
Sadducees, as a sacerdotal aristocracy, beiag " 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-Kablji of the circumscription 
of Colmar (Klein, Le Judhisme, im la Vdnte sur 
It Talinuf], 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 
leariiing 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 lie 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 l)etter 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 exjjlanation of its law, and has always de- 
termined and ruled its application. Holy Writ 
often lepresents 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 ha^■e wished to impose on them 
tome 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 sucli 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 thenj 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 E':say mi the Revenues of Ihe Church 
of England, by the Rev. Morgan Cove, Prebendary of 
Hereford, and Rector of Eaton Bishop. 578 pp. Lon- 
:!jn, Rivington, 1816. Third edition. " Thus do we 
return again to the original ditiiculty [the origin of 
titllfisj, tr the solution of which tlie strength of human 


assume, that they who deny a Mosaic Oral L*ir. 
imagine that this Oral Law was at some one time, 
as one gfeat system, introduced suddenly amongst 
the Israelites. The mode of conceiving what 
occurred is far different. After the return from 
the Captivity, there existed prol>al)ly 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 liy the Oral Law, 
Ijut the belief accepted by a certain portion of tha 
Jews that Moses had divinely revealed those cus- 
toms as laws to the Israelites. I'o explain thia 
historically from written records is impossible, from 
the silence on the subject of the very scanty his- 
torical Jewish writings purporting to be written 
lietween the return from the Captivity in 5-38 before 
Christ and that uncertain period when the canon 
was closed, which at the earliest could not have 
been long before the death of Antiothus Epiphanes, 
B. c. 164. For all this space of time, a period of 
al)out 374 years, a period as long as from the acces- 
sion of Henry YII. to the present year (18G2) 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 tlie heroic 
rising of the iSIaccabees, during which there is a 
total absence of contemporary Jewish history. In 
this de.arth of historical materials, it is idle to 
attempt a positive narration of the circumstances 
under which the Oral Law became assigned to 
Closes as its author. It is amply suthcient if a 
satisfactory suggestion is made as to how it might 
have been attributed to Moses, a?id in this there is 
not much difficulty for any one who bears in mind 
how notoriously in ancient times laws of a much 
later date were attributed to Jlinos, Lycurgus, 
Solon, and Numa. The unreasonableness of sup- 
posing that the belief in tlie oral traditions being 
from jMoses must have coincided in [wint of time 
with the acceptance of the oral tradition, may Ije 
illustrated by what occurred in England during 
the jiresent 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 
revel.ation made to Adam." " Now, let us suppose 
that England was a country as small as Judaea; 
that the English were as few in mnnber as the 
Jews of Judwa 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 othei 
method of solving it, but by assigning the origin of 
the custom, and the peculiar observance of it, to soma 
unrecorded revelation made to Adam, and by him ami 
his -lescendants delivered down to posterity." 


iie agserti('n 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 
lanie 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 j'ear 
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 l)y this illustration to suggest that reasons 
aa specious could be advanced for such a divine 
origin of tithes as even for a Mosaic Oral Law. 
The main object of the illustration is to show that 
the existence of a practice, and the belief as to the 
origin of a practice, are two wholly distinct points; 
and that there is no necessary 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 Law, rejected likewise all traditions 
and all decisions in explanation of passages in the 
Pentateuch. Although they protested against tiie 
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 e.^plain why in the Jlishna 
specific points of difference between the Pharisees 
and Sadducees are mentioned, which are so unim- 
portant; such, e. g. as whether touching the Holy 
Scriptures made the hands technically ''unclean," 
in the Levitical sense, and whether the stream 
which Hows when water is poured from a clean 
vessel into an unclean one is itself technically 
"clean" or "unclean" {Ynda'uii, iv. 6, 7). If 
the Pharisees and Sadducees had diflfered on all 
matters not directly contained in the Pentateuch, 
it would scai'cely have been necessary to partic- 
ularize points of difference such as these, which 
to Christians imbued with the genuine spirit of 
Christ's teaching (Matt. xv. II; 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 nion>entous 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 
jroclaimed by Moses, their great legislator; and it 

a Many other points of difference, ritual and jurid- 
ical, are uieutioued in the Gemaras. See Graetz 
',iii. 514-518). But it seems unsafe to admit the 
Semaras as an authority for statements respecting 
^e Pharisees and Sadducees. See, as to tlie date of 
those works, the article Ph.\risees. 

* See Ue Senectvte, xxiii. This tre:itise was coni- 
tOAOd within twn years before Cicero's death, and 


IS certain tL»t in the written Law jf the Penta- 
teuch there is a total absence of any assertion by 
Jloses 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, tlie blessings and curses, with which a 
portion of that great work abounds. In the Law 
Moses is rejireseuted 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 freedom 
from sickness (Deut. vii. 12-15, xxviii. 1-12; Ex. 
XX. 12, xxiii. 25, 26); and he likewise menaces the 
disol^edient with the most dreadful evils which can 
afflict humanity, with poverty, fell diseases, dis- 
astrous and disgraceful defeats, sulijugation, 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 a? 
believed in by Plato, and apparently by Cicero.'- 
there is a similar alisence 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 bj' Christ in argmnent with the Sadducees 
on this subject (Ex. iii. 6, 10; JMark xii 26, 27; 
Matt. xxii. .31, 32; Luke xx. 37). It caimot be 
doubted that in such a case Christ would quote to 
his powerful adversaries the most cogent text in 
the Law ; and yet the text actUjilly quoted does not 
do more than suggest an inference on tiiis sreat 
doctrine. Indeed it must be deemed prol)able 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 Aliraham, 
the God of Isaac, and the God of .lacob, did not 
necessarily mean more than that .Teho\ah had been 
the God of those patriarchs while they lived on 
earth, without conveying a suggestion, one way or 
another, as to whether the}' 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. 10; 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 
Law. There is a danger here of confounding the 
ideas which are now common amongst Christians, 
who regard the whole ceremonial law as alirogated, 
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 C/neitlin. cap. 
Ixi., ill a passage wliich is a striking proof of the 
popular belief at Rome in his time. See also Sallust, 
Catilin. li. I Juvenal, ii. 149 ; cad Pliny the Elder, 
vii. 56. 



(rhile 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 si^ns 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 Isiaelites, but 
even the mode by which divine communications 
weie 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; L)eut. v. 4, 
xxxiv. 10-12). Hence scarcely any Jew would 
have deemed himself bound to l)elieve 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 interpieted 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 ineonchisive, 
»s being, indeed, the utterances of holy men, yet 
opposed to other te.Kts which had equal claims to 
be proiiounceJ sacred, but which could scarcely be 
supposed to ha\e Ijeen written by men who believed 
in a resurrection (Is. xxxviii. 18, 10; Vs. vi. 5, 
XXX. 9, Ixxxviii. 10, 11, 12; Eccl. ix. 4-10). The 
real truth seems to be that, as in Christi.mity the 
doctrii]e of the re.siirrection of man rests on belief 
in the resurrection of Jesus, with sul)sidiary 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 .lews now living, has rested, and 
rests, on a belief in the supposed Oral Law of 
Moses. On tliis 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 innnortality 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 
fortime of the just. Rut man searches in vain for 
these truths, which he desires so ardently; he in 
rain 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 
unnounced. Nevertheless truths so consoling and 
of such an elevated order cannot have been passed 
»ver in silence, and ccrtaiidy (iod has not relied 
on the mere sagacity of the human mind in order 
to announce them only implicitly, //e has tnins- 


mitted ikem verbally, with the means of finding 
them in the text. A supplementary tradition voat 
necessary, indispens'ible : this tradition exists. 
Manes received the Law from Sinai, transmitted 
it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders trans- 
mitted it to the pirophets, and the prophets to the 
men of the yreat synagogue " (Klein, Le Judaisme 
ou la Verite sitr le Talmud, p. 15). 

In connection with the disbelief of a resurrection 
by ^he 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 otlier liooks 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, xsii. 11, xxviii. 12; Ex. xxiii. 
20; Num. xxii. 23; Judg. xiii. 18: 2 Sam. xxiv. 
It), and other passages). The difficulty is increased 
by the fact that no such denial of angels is recorded 
of the Sadducees either by Jose])hus, 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 <_)ld Testament as tran- 
sitory nnsulistantial 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 Volk-es Jisrael, iii. 
3(54). Itither of these explanations may possibly 
be correct; and the first, although there are numer- 
ous texts to which it did not apply, would have 
received some countenance from passages 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. TlS/tt, (ien. xvi. 7, 13, xxii. 
11, 12, xxxi. 11, 16; Vx. 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 suifgested 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 
" antrel or spirit " would lie found exclusively in 
the 9th \erse. This view of the Sadducees may be 
illustrated liy 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 tlie present day, even to the most 
virtuous and pious of mankind. 

III. The opinions of the Sadducees respecting 
the freedom of the will, and the way in which 
those opinions are treated by Josephus {Ant. xiii. 
.5, § 9), have been noticed elsewhere [Ph.vhi.sees, 
iii. 2478], and an explanation has been there sug- 
gested of the prominence civen to a difference ir 
this respect between the Sndducees and the Phari- 
sees. It may be here added that possibly the great 
stress lai(i by the Sadducees on the freedom of tui 



iriU may have had some connection with their 
forming such a large portion of that class from 
which criminal judges were selected. Jewish plii- 
losophers in their study, although they knew that 
punishments as an instrument of good were un- 
avoidable, might indulge in reflections that man 
seemed to be the creature of circumstances, and 
miiiht regard with compassion the punishments 
inflicted on individuals whom a wiser moral train- 
ing and a more happily balanced nature miuht have 
made useful members of society. Those Jews who 
were almost exclusively religious teachers would 
naturally insist on the inability of man to do an}- 
thing good if God's Holy Spirit were taken away 
from him (Ps. li. 11, 12), and would eidarge on 
the perils which surrounded man from the tempta- 
tions of Satan and evil angels or s[)irits (1 C'hr. 
xxi. 1; Tob. iii. 17). But it is likely that the 
tendencies of the judicial class would lie more prac- 
tical and direct, and more strictly in accordance 
with the ideas of the Levitical prophet I'^zekiel 
(xxxiii. 11-19) in a well-knowm passage 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 
Bentiment 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 lie regarded as a correct exponent of Sad- 
ducean thought." And yet perhaps, if writings 
were extant in which the Sadducees explained their 
own ideas, we might find that they reconciled these 
principles, as we may be certain that Ezekiel did, 
with other passages apparently of a ditterent 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 Josephus would lead us to suppose. 

IV. Some of the early Christian writers, such 
aa [Hippol. Philosophum. ix. 29, and the spu- 
rious addition to TertuU. De PrcBscr. Hcertt. c. 
1 (or 45),] Epiphaiuus (Hieies. xiv.), Origen 
and .lerome (in their respective Commentaries on 
Matt. xxii. 31, 32, 33) attribute to tiie Sadducees 
the rejection of all the Sacred Scriptures except the 
Pentateuch. Such rejection, if true, would un- 
doubtedly constitute a most important additional 
difterenee lietween the Sadducees and Pharisees. 
I'he statement of these Christian writers is, how- 
ever, now generally admitted to have been founded 
on a misconception of the truth, and probal)ly to 
have arisen from a confusion of the Sadducees 
with the Samaritans. See Lightfoot's f/ane He- 
braiccB on Matt. iii. 7; Herzfeld's Gesc/iichte (hs 

]':)lkes Jisrciel, 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 ail antagonism if it had really ex- 

sted (Ant. xiii. 5, § 9, xviii. 1, § 3; B. J. ii. 8, 



a The preceding lines would be equally applicable, 
*f, as is not improbable, the Sadducees likewise re- 
lected the Chaldaeau belief in astrology, so couimon 
jaong the Jews and Christians of the Middle Ages : — 

§ 14). Again, the existence of such a inomentoni 
antagonism would be incompatilJe with the man- 
ner in which Josephus speaks of John Hyrcanus, 
who was high-priest and king of Judtea thirty-one 
years, and who nevertheless, having been previously 
a Pharisee, became a Sadducee towards the close 
of his life. This Hyrcaims, who died about 106 
H. 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 surl'ace to a level or slope, and then to have 
diverted streams of water o\er 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 waa 
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 lie 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 tolera- 
tion which we may tie confident he would not have 
indulged in, if the divine authority of all the books 
of the Old Testament exce[it the Pentateuch, had 
been at stake. What probably had moi-e 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 lie 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 sub.sequent predominance among the Jews of 
the opinions of the Pharisees. 'l\vo 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 lieen ruthlessly burnt to the ground, and 
not one stone of it was left upon another: their 
magnificent hopes either of an ideal king who waa 
to restore the empire of David, or of a Son of Mai 
who was to appear to them "n the clouds of heaven, 

" Man is hie own Star i and the soul that can 
llenrier an honest and a perfect man. 
Commands all light, all influence, all fate : 
Xothing to him falls early, or *.oo hite." 
Fi.KTCUEB'8 Woes ■' i^pon au txf "visi ii'un's Fortmm.' 


leemed to them for a while like empty dreams; and 
the whole visible norld 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 
heyoiid 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 tlie heathen, was gradually making its way 
among the subjects of their detested conquerors, 
the Koniaiis. One of the causes of its success was 
uudouljtedly the vivid belief in the resurrection of 
Jesus, and a consequent resurrection of ail man- 
kind, which was accepted by its heathen converts 
with a passionate eamestness, of which those who 
at the present day are familiar from infancy with 
the doctrine of the resurrection of tne dead can 
form only a faint idea. To attem])t to check the 
progress of this new religion among the Jews l)y an 
appeal to the temporary rewards and punishments 
of the I'entateucii, 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 I'harisees, but who 
resisted the new heresy, to rally round the stand- 
ard of the (;)ral Law, and to assert that their holy 
legislator, JNIoses, had transmitted to his faitliful 
people by word of mouth, although not in writing, 
the revelation of a future state of rewards and 
punishments. A great Ijelief was thus built up on 
a great fiction ; early teaching and custom supi)lied 
the place of evidence: faith in an imaginary (act 
produce'd results as .striking as could have flowed 
from the fact itself; and tlie doctrine of a Jlosaic 
Oral Law, enshrining convictions and hopes deeply 
rooted in the human heart, has triumphed for 
nearly 1800 years in the ideas of the .lewish 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 .lewish con- 
temporaries; and it will probably continue to be 
the creed of millions lotig 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 Pliilosophumenn or Rtfuiatio omnium 
Bceresium, now generally ascribed to Hippolytus, 
lib. ix. cc. 18-30. The Sadducees are not named 
byPhilo, but Grossmann, De Piiilos. Sudducteorum, 
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 

a In Germany and elsewliere, 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 ttie mistakes of 
the Karaites, it might still have a great future; but 
whether it could last another 1800 years with the be- 
jef in a future life, as a revealed doctrine, depending 
Dot on a supposed revelation by Moses, but solely on 
scattered texts, in the Hebrew Scriptures, is an in- 

«re8tiug subject for speculation. 
h The primary meaning of li7^^p, according to 

Jesemus and Dietrich, is " pure ; " according to Fiirst 


Winer, Bihl. Eeiilworterb. and Eeuss in HerWig' 
Real-Kncykl., art. Sac/ducaer). The tncie recent 
writers respecting the Sadducees are mentioned 
under the art. Pharisees, vol. iii. p. 2479. 
Among these, Keim, Derenbourg and Hansratb 
may be specially referred to for a view of the latest 
researches and opinions. See also Fiirst' s Ge 
schichte des Karderthums, 2 vols. Lei^z. 1862-65, 
and J. R. llanne, Die Pharisder u. Sadducuer 
als polit. Piirteien, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. f. iciss. 
TheoL, 1867, x. 131-179,^ 239-263. A. 

SA'DOC (Sndoch). 1. Zadok the ancestor 
of Ezra (2 Esdr. i. 1; comp. Ezr. vii. 2). 

2. (2a5ttiK: Sadoc.) A descendant of Zerub- 
babel in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matt. i. 14). 

SAFFRON (C3~l3, carcdm: Kp6>cos- 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 tlie correct rendering of the Hebrew word; 
the Araliic Kitrkum is similar to the Hebrew, and 
denotes the Crocus scdivus, or "saffron crocus." 
Safiiim lias from the earliest times been in high 
esteem as a perfume: "it is used," says Piosen- 
miiller (Bi/j. Bot. p. 138), "for the same puqjoses 
as the modern pot-pourri." Saffron was also used 
in seasoning dishes (Apicius, p. 270): it entered 
into tlie comiiosition of many spirituous extracts 
which retained the scent (see Beckmann's //is/, of 
Inrent. 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. Koyle says, that " sometimes 
the stigmas are prepared by being submitted to 
pressure, and thus made into cake saffron, a form 
ill which it is still imported from Persia into In- 
dia." Hnsselquist {Trav. p. 36) states that in 
certain places, as around iNIagnesia, large quanti- 
ties of saffron are gathered and exported to different 
places in Asia and Europe. Kitto {Plnjs. /list, of 
Pidest. p. 321) says that the s.afflower (Cartkumus 
tinctorius), a \'ery different plant from the crocus, 
is cultivated in Syria for the sake of the flowers 
which are used in dyeing, but the Knrkom no doubt 
denotes the Crocus sfitivus. The word saffron is 
derived from the Arabic Zrfran, " yellow." This 
plant gives its name to Saffion-Walden, in Essex, 
where it is largely cultivated. It belongs to the 
Natural Order Iridacem. W. H. 

* SAINTS (derived, through the French, from 
the Latin sanctus) occurs in the O. T. sixteen 

times as the translation of ©"np or its cognates, 

and nineteen times as the translation of I^Cn, 
wliich Hebrew words are with a few exceptions rep- 
resented in the LXX. by ayios and ocios respect- 
ively.* In some instances when applied to men 

" pure," " fresh ; " according to Meier (Hebr. Wur- 
zeliv., p. 395) " separated." Hupfeld ascribes to 

T^Dn ( Comm. on Ps. iv. 4) a passive force, '< fa,- 
vored." 'A-ytos (from a^ia, a^ofiaL, venerate, akin to 
aya/xai. Buttmann's Lfxilogiis, i. 236 ; F. trans, p 471 
seems by derivation to signify " very pur*-," then 
" holy." The derivation of ocrios, " hallowed."' is les« 
certain (see Benfey, Griech. Wiirzrilex. i. 434 f.) 
'0(no5, common in the classics, in Biblii-al Greek t^ 
cedes from use. As a personal epithet it is applied t« 
Christians but once in the NT., and then in describ 
iug the official character of a bishop (Tit. i 8). 'A7401 


. describes their inherent personal character (Ps. 
ux. 4, xxxi. 23, xxxiv. 9, xxxvii. 28, etc.). But 
.11 the majority of cases it seems to be used in a 
theocratic rather than a moral sense: so that, while 
having ol'ten 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. vii. 18, 21, 22, 25, 27; cf. viii. 24, 
sii. 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 ayios, and in its 
application to Christians it is not used to designate 
tliem 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 sinners, or as the possessors of 
an imputed holiness, or of some degree of actual 
holiness, or as predestined to perfect holiness, or as 
constitutinijc a community the greater or more im- 
portant numl)er of whom are holy; but it is an 
appellation of all Christians as Christians. On be- 
coming Christians they become also "saints" (cf. 
the use of the singular in Phil. iv. 21). Yet as 
in the 0. 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, the tiieocratic sense is regarded as "ful- 
filled '' in the spiritual, the consecration is viewed 
more as internal and personal, the ayioi are also 
truly Tjyiaa/xevoi (cf. 1 Cor. i. 2; Eph. i. 1, 4; 1 
Pet. ii. 9.) (Note the fluctuation in the meaning 
of aytd(^oi3 in .fohn xvii. 17, 19; and see Heb. ii. 
11.) This sense, however, is one which does not so 
much lie in tlie 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 diiTerent passages. 
The value of the term for moral uses is greatly 
augmented by this very flexit)ility and possible com- 
prehensiveness of signification. 

The term is aljo applied in the 0. T. several 
times (Deut. xxxiii. 2; .lob 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. yahs ayios), to God himself 
i/jhir. mnjesl. cf. .losh. xxiv. 19 ; Prov. ix. 10, xxx. 
3.) In the N. T., also, it is thought by many 
expositors to be used of holy anyels in 1 Thess. iii. 
13 (so .lude, ver. 14); in Rev. xv. 3 the reading 
"saints" is unsustained by the MSS. 

Although, the term is usecl 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, thouj;h found as early as Ilerod., 
's rare iu profane Greek, but very common in the 
Bible — selected by the sacred writers apparently be- it presents holiness under the aspect of awe 

l.owards a person. Its correlate (ti7"Tp) first occurs 
)u occasion of the appearance of God to Moses (Ex. 
ii. 5). See G. v. Zfzschwitz, Profnnsrucitat, etc., p. 
l6 I. ; Tittmaun, rie Si/n. in Nov. Test. i. 22 f. : Ore 
aier. Bibl.-tkeol. WOrterb. (hr N. T. Gracitat, pp. 27 f , 
,19 f. ; Trench, Syn. of N. T., § Ixxxviii. p. 312 ff., 
»t. ii. E 182 ff. (Amer ed.). 

o The unrestricted application of the term seems to 

SAINTS 2785 

xxvi. 18), yet it is nowhere used to designate th» 
people of God in heaven, as distinguished from 
those on earth. Nor is it ever restricted to the 
eminently pious in distinction from the mass of 
believers. « 

In the saints Christ will be glorified at his com- 
ing (2 Thess. i. 10), :(nd 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 from the dead, 
and tiiat they went into Jerusalem after Christ's 
resurrection and were seen by many, the language 
leaves no doubt. That their tombs were in the 
vicinity of Calvary and were opened contempora- 
neously with the earthquake, appears to be implied 
(cf. vftf 64 ). That they were not, or a't least were not 
solely, departed disciples of Christ seems probable; 
for as yet "many" of them, could hardly have 
dieit b'urther, the term "saints" applied thus in 
3 Chnstian document to deceased .lews who at the 
same time are spoken of as KeKOifii^fx^veov,'' still 
more the congruities of the case, make it probable 
that the word has here a distinctive force and de- 
notes Jewish worthies (cf. 1 Pet. iii. 5). The 
arrangement of the words favors the intei-pretation 
that " they came forth from their sepulchres after 
the Lord's resurrection;" accordingly T/7ep0r;trov 
has been regarded by some expositors as antici- 
patory, by others more naturally as signitying 
merely "raised to HJ'e," and so distinguishing the 
vivification from the quitting the tonjbs. 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 luniiber, have preferred to make the 
assumption that both were postponed until after 
Christ had risen. Possil)ly we may find in crcOjUaTo 
support for the supposition that they had died 
recently (and so were recognized by those to whom 
they appeared). Certainly there is nothing either 
in the use of this word or of it/e<paviffQr)(Tai>,'' nor 
in the context of historic realities in which the 
incident lies imbedded, to favor the tiieory 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 
sympatliy with him. ^Vhether the risen saints 
were clothed with immortal bodies and ascended 
with their Lord (as the commentators have lieen 
commonly pleased to assume), or rose to die again; 

h.ive continued down to the times of Irenaiua and 
Tertulliau (Herzog, Keal-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 st<ate, does appear to be used in the New Test 
specifically of the righteous dead. 

<^ 'Efii^ai'i'^w would be appropriately u.scd, indeed, 
of a spectral appear.ance (cf. AVisd. of Sol. xvii. 4), 
but may designate no less appropriately an appeaiano* 
in the body. See John xiv 22. 



whether tliey were the only ones among the de- 
parted whose condition was aflected 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 inteuial 
characteristics (particularly t?V ayiav ttoMv , cf. 
iv. 5). Nur is fliere any pretext for regarding it as 
a mythical ainphfication of the flict 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 tlie reimdnder ? And why 
should the existence of apocr3phal appendages* 
bring suspicion upon this any more than upon 
other portions of tiie 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 JMessianic expectation of the times which 
had not been fulfilled by Jesus during his ministry, 
namely, that the Messiah would effect a yenernL 
resurrection of the pious dead, and that, too, a res- 
urrection to immuiidl life. Yet the nai-rative is 
made to meet the first requirement only l)y exag- 
gerating improbably the nmuerical force of ttoAAo; 
and concerning a resurrection to iiiunort'd hfe it 
gives, as has been already intimated, no hint. Ob- 
viously the incident ought not to be coiitemplated 
as an isolated fact, but as one of the accompani- 
ments of tlie 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 Jemi, 
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. 1818, pp. 112-125. 

J. H. T. 

SA'LA (5aAa: Sale). Salah, or Shelah, 
the father of Eber (Luke iii. 35). 

SA'LAH (n^^P [a missile, weapon; also 
yn-oui] : 2aAa: Sale). The son of Arphaxad and 

o There is no propriety in associating, as many 
lommentators do, this incident in Matt, with the stjite- 
ment relative to " the spirits in prison " (1 Pet. iii. 19). 
Although Peter's language i.s generally reudered in the 
versions and coniuieufaries, " who were sometime dis- 
obedient," and so Christ's preaching represented as 
•laving taken pla/'e after his death, yet such a trans- 
ition is given in disregard of the fact that aTreiSyjo-ao-i, 
^freeing as it does with a noun which has the article 
yet itself wanting it, is properly a predicative, not an 
►ttributive, participle. Says Donaldson ( tirefi- Gram. 


father of Eber (Gen. x. 24, xi. 12 14; Ltike iij. 36V 
The name is significant of extension, the cognau 
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 Kortbern Assyria 
towards the river Euphrates. A place with a 
similar name in Northern Jlesopotaniia is noticed 
by Syrian writers (Knobel, in Gen. xi.); but we 
can hardly assume its identity with the Salah of 
the Bible. Ewald (Gesclt. i. ;J54) and Von Bohlen 
(Jiitrod. to Gen. ii. 205) regard the name as i)ureiv 
fictitious, the former explaining it as a son or ojf- 
spriny, 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 
un\varraniod. [The proper form of this nanie is 
SnELAK, which see. — A.] W. L. B. 

SAL'AMIS (2aAa(i(s [prob. fr. otAx, sea, as 
being near the shore] : Salainis), 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 coiu-se obviously 
suggest themsel\es, namely, the fact that Cyprus 
(and probably Salamis) was the native place of 
Barnabas, and the geographical proximity of tliis 
end of the island to Antioch. But a further reason 
is indicated by a circmustauce in the narrative 
(Acts xiii. 5). Here alone, among all the dreek 
cities visited by St. I'aul, we read expressly of •• 
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 [Chittim; Cyi'UUs], Jewish residents 
in the island are mentioned during the period 
when the Seleucidai reigned at Antioch (] JIacc. 
XV. 23). In the reign of Augustus the Cyprian 
copper-mines were farmed to Herod the Great 
(.loseph. Ant. xvi. 4, § 5), and this would proba- 
ably attract many Hebrew families: to which we 
may add evidence to the sanje effect from Bhilo 
{Legal, ad Caiuin) 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 tunmlts here, caused by a vast multitude 
of .lews, in the course of wliich " the whole popu- 
lous city of Salamis became a desert " (Mihnan's 
Hist, of the Jews, iii. Ill, 112). We may well 
believe that from the Jews of Salamis came some 
of those early Cyi)riote Christians, who are so 
prominently mentioned in the account of the first 
spreading of the Gospel l)€yond Palestine (Acts 
xi. 19, 20), even before the first missionary expe- 
dition. Mnason (xxi. 16) might be one of them. 
Nor ought Mark to be forgotten here. He was at 
Salamis with Paul, and his own kinsman Barnabas; 
and asain he was there with the same kinsman after 

3d ed., p. 532) : " The participle ivilhout the article 
can never be rightly rendered by the relative sentence 
with a definite anteredeut, which is equivalent to the 
participle iviih an article " (cf. The Neiv Cratytiis, § 
304 f.). Green in his A'. T. Grammar (p. 54, ed. 1862; 
renders the pas.sage, " He went and preached to the 
imprisoned spirits on their being ouce on a time dis- 
obedient, when," etc. 

b On this point see Eraiig. Nico'i. (2d Part) c. 17 f. 
Thilo, Cod. ApocT. N. T , pp. 7S0 f., 810 f. ; Tiwsh 
Evang Apocr. p 301 f. 


,he mismiderstanding with St. Paul and the separa- 
Jon«(xv. 39). 

Salamis was not far from the modern Fnmn- 
goicsla. It was situated near a river called the 
Pediaeus, 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 spoken of by Greek 
writers as very good ; and that one of the ancient 
tables lays down a road between this city and 
Papjios, the next place which Paul and Barnabas 
visited on their journey. Salamis again has rather 
an eminent position in subsequent Christian his- 
tory. Constantine or his successor rebuilt it, and 
Dalled it Constantia (" Salamis, quaj nunc Con- 
stantia dicitur," Hieronym. P/i/Vem.), 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 
(Dtsc. of the East, ii. 214) and Ross (Jieisen nacli 
Kos, Hidibirwissiis, Rhoilos, uml Cypcrn, pp. 118- 
12.5). These travellers notice, in the neighborhood 
of Salamis, a village named St. Seryius, which is 
doubtless a reminiscence of Sergius Paulus, and a 
large Byzantine church bearing the name of iS^ 
Barnabas, and associated with a legend concerning 
the discovery of his relics. The legend will be 
found in Cedrenus (i. (US, ed. Bonn). [Barna- 
bas; Sergius Pal"lus.] J. S. H. 

SALAS'ADAI [4 syl.] ([Ales.] laXaaaSaf. 
[Vat. Rom.] -2,apaaaSa'i; [Sin. SapicraSai, MS. 
19] ^ovpirraSe), a variation for Snrisadd (Soupicr- 
a5ai, Num. i. 6) in Jud. viii. 1. [Zurishaduai.] 

B. F. W. 

SALA'THIEL (bs\*nbstp, [bSNI^tt.^:] 
laXadiiiX- Salathiel: " I have asked God " "). son 
of Jechonias king of Judah, and father of Zorol)a- 
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. (Zerur- 
i5.\iiEL.] Upon the incontrovertiljle principle that 
no genealogy would assign to tlie 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 lie- 
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, wlien he informs 
us that Salathiel was the son of Xeri, 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- 

a Possibly with an allusion to 1 Sam. i. 20, 27, 28. 
See Broughton's Our Lord's Family. 

b It is worth uotint; that Jospphus 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 fJat athe- 
sm to prate that he naturally became tather to Sala- 
jhiel. Though St. Luke had never left us Salatliiel's 
familj' up to Nathan, whole brother to Solomon, to 
Ihow that Salathiel was of another family, God's oath 
hould make us believe that, without any further rec- 
ai" (Broughton, ut supra). 

SALCAH 2787 

nias," we infer, with no less confidiince, 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 o.'i 
the supposition of his being the son of Jechonias. 
On this last principle, you micjlit 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 njore 
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 
tlie father of Zerubbabel will be considered under 
that article.'' Besides the passages already cited, 
Salathiel occurs in 1 Esdr. v. 5, 48, 56, vi. 2; 2 
Esdr. V. 16. 

As regards the orthography of the name, it has, 
as noted above, two forms in Hebrew. 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 Ezr. iii. 2; Neh. xii. 1 
The LXX. everywhere have 2uAa6iT)A, while the 
A. V. has (prol)ably with an eye to correspondence 
with Matt, and Luke) Salathiel in 1 Chr. iii. 17, 
but everywhere else in the O. T. Shealtiel. 
[Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Jehoiachin.] 

A. C. H. 

SAL'CAH.'^ (n^/p \ioandering, miyration^ 

Fiirst] : Se/cx"', 'Axa, 2eAa [Vat. EAxa] ; Alea. 
AffeAxat, EAxa, SeAxa- Sahcha, Selctia). 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 Siil- 
khad, which stands at the southein extremity of 
tlie Jebel Hauran, twenty miles S. of Kmirtwat 
(the ancient Kenath), which was the southern out- 
post of the Leja, the Argob of the Bible. Siiikhad 
is named by both the Christian and Mohammedan 
historians of the miadle ages (Will, of Tyre, xvi. 
8, "Selcath;" Abnlfeda, in Schultens' Index 
c/eofjr. "Sarchad"). It was visited by Burckhardt 
[Syria, Nov. 22, 1810), Seetzen and others, and 
more recently by Porter, who describes it at some 

d See a curious calculation in Blackstone's Ccm- 
menl. ii. 203, that in the 20th degree of ancestry every 
man has above a million of ancestors, and in the 40tll 
upwards of a million millions. 

e The theory of two Salathiels, of whom each had 
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 hav- 
ing represented the Hebrew Caph by c. Their com- 
mon practice is to use cli for it — as indeed they have 
done on one occurrence of this very name. [Salchah j 
and compare Caleb ; CAFaxoR ; Uarmix ; CozBi ', 
Cosh, etc.] 



length (Five Yems, ii. ITG-llG). Its identifica- 
tion with Salcah appears to be due to Gesenius 
(Burckhardt's Reisen, p. 507). 

Immediately below SiilUirid commences the plain 
of the great Euphrates desert, which appears to 
stretch with hardly an undulation from here to 
Basra on the Persian Gulf. Tlie town is of consid- 
erable size, two to three miles in circumference, 
Burrounding a castle on a lofty isolated hill, which 
rise^ 300 or 400 feet above the rest of the place 
(Porter, pp. 178, 179). One of the gateways of the 
castle bears an inscription containing the date of 
A. D. 246 (180). A still earlier date, namely, A. d. 
190 (Septiniius 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. 

* ilr. Porter describes the present condition of 
this city in his Giant Cities of Bas/ian, 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 expending an hour's labor on repairs. 
The circumference of the town and castle together 
is about thi-ee Uiiles. The open doors, the empty 
houses, the rank grass and weeds, the long, strag- 
gling brambles in tlie doorways and windows, 
formed a strange, impressive picture which can 
never leave my memory. Street after street we 
traversed, the tread of om- horses awakening mourn- 
ful echoes and startling the foxes from their dens 
in the palaces of Salcah. Tlie 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 stretcliing out on the 
west to Hermon; the plain of Moab on the south, 
to the horizon ; and the plain of Arabia on tiie 
east beyond the range of visidn. . . . From this 
one spot I saw upwards of 30 towns, all of them, 
80 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 (nabO: *EAxa: Selcha). The 
form in wliich the name, elsewhere more accu- 
rately given Salcah, appears in Deut. iii. 10 

only. The Targum Pseu(hjon. gives it S'^plT^D, 
i. e. Selucia; though which Steleucia they can have 
supposed was here intended it is difficult to im- 
agine. G. 

SA'LEM (Cbttr, i. e. Shalem [whole, i)erfect] : 
laXri/j.'- 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- 
ole. 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- 

svrians — went out to meet (HS^pv)'' Abram, 
yet it is also distinctly stated that this was after 
Abram had returned ("l^^tT "^"^.D^) from the 
daughter of the kings. Indeed, it is not certain 


Per instance, Bochart, Phaleg, ii. 4 ; Ewald, Gesch. 


that there is any connection of time or pl\;e be- 
tween Abram's encounter with the king of Sodom 
and 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- 

Dr. Wolff — no mean authority on oriental 
questions — in a striking passage in bis last work, 
implies that Salem was — wliat 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 Hebi-ew Mvlchi-zedck. 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 Wolf}''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 
lie makes peace between kings he bears the title, 
Shaiie Soolkh, ' King of Peace ' — in Hebrew Me- 

To re\ert, however, to the topographical ques- 
tion ; two main opinions have been cunent from 
tlie earliest ages of interpretation. 1. That of the 
.iewish commentators, who — from Onkelos ( Tar- 
(jum) and .Tosephus [B. J. vi. 10; Ant. i. 10, § 2, 
vii. 3, § 2) to Kalisch (Comm. on Gtn. p. 360) — 
with one voice affirni_ that Salem is Jerusalem, on 
tlie 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 ^lel- 
chizedek. See this well put by Reland {Pal. p. 
833). The Christians of the 4th century held the 
same lielief with the Jews, as is evident from an ex- 
pression of Jerome (" nostri omnes," Ej^. ad Evan- 
yelum, § 7). 

2. Jerome himself, however, is not of the same 
opinion. He states {I'jy. ad Evany. § 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 wherp 
the vast ruins of the palace of Melchizedek were 
still to be seen. Elsewhere {Onoin. " 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 
i'XaXeifj.) of .St. John the Ba])tist. That a Salem 
existed where St. Jerome thus places it there need 
be no doulit. Indeed, the name has been recovered 
at the identical distance lielow Beisdn by Mr. Van 
de Velde, at a spot otherwise suitable for yEnon. 
But that this Salein, Sahm, or Salumias was the 
Salem of Melchizedek, is as uncertain as that Jeru- 
salem was so. The ruins were prol)abIy as much 
the ruins of Melchizedek's palace as the remains at 
Ramet eUKhalil^ three miles north of Hebron, are 
those of " Abraham's house." Nor is the decision 
assisted by a consideration of Abram's lonieward 
route. He probably brought back his party by 

b The force of this word is occurrere in obviavi (Q« 
senius, Thes. p. 1233 b]. 


Jie road aljng the Ghor as far as Jericlio, and then 
turning to the rii;ht ascended to the upper level of 
the country in the direction of JIamre; but whether 
he crossed the Jordan at the Jisr Benal Yukub 
aliove the Lake of Gennesaret, or at the JUr Mt- 
\amia below it, he would 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 proljable position of Sodom) 
makes it difficult to suppose that the king of Sodom 
can have advanced so far to meet Abram, adds its 
weight to the statement that the meeting took 
place after Abram had returned, — not during his 
return, — and is thus so far in 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 endea\ored 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 
Prmpiiralio Kvani/tUca of luisebius (is. 1"), 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 har Gerizzint, Mount Gerizim. 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 Sii.vLEM.] 

5. A Salem is mentioned in Judith iv. 4, among 
tlie 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. {rhv ahKiava 
"S.aKiijx), is possibly, as Keland has higeniously 
suggested {Pal. "Salem," p. 977), a corruption of 
els avKuya els SaA^^u — " into the plain to Sa- 
lem." If AuAwv is here, according to frequent 
usage, the Jordan <-' Valley, then the Salem referred 
to must surely be that mentioned bj' 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 Sallin stands 
on the other, which is said to be still called the 
'•plain of Salim"'' (Port^T, Hamlbuok, p. 340 a), 
«nd through which runs the central north road of 
ihe country. Or, as is perhaps still more likelj', it 



a Professor Stanley seems to have been the first to 
call attention to this (.S. ^ P. p. 249). See Eupolemi 
Fragmenta, auctore G. A. Kulilmey (Berlin, 1840) ; 
gne of those excellent monographs which we owe to 
the German academical custom of demanding a trea- 
tise at each step in honors. 

fc Pliny uses nearly the same form — Argaris ( H. 
.V. V. 14). 

c A.v\u)v is commonly employed in Palestine topog- 
raphy for the great valley ot the Jordan (see Eusebius 
vnd Jerome, Oiiomnsliron, "Anion''). But in the 
Book of Judith it is used with much less precision in 
Ihe general sense of a valley or plain. 

^ The writer could not succeed (in 1861) in eliciting; I 

refers to another Sulim near Ztrin (Jezreel), and to 
the plain which runs up between those two places, 
as far as Jcnin, and which lay directly in the route 
of the Assyrian army. There is nothing to show 
that the inxaders 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.;-tt.' : fV elp7]vr]- in pace«), Ps. Ixxvi. 2. 
It seems to l>e agreed on all hands that Salem is 
here employed for Jerusalem, liut whether as a 
mere abbreviation to suit some exigency of the 
poetry, and point the allusion to the peace (s'llem) 
which the city enjoyed through the protection of 
God, or whether, after a well-known habit of jwets/ 
it is an antique name preferred to the more modern 
and familiar one, is a question not yet decided. 
The latter is the opinion of the Jewish commen- 
tators, but 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'a 
Uischrift, etc., pp. 74-76. 

The antithesis in verse 1 between "Judah" and 
" Israel " would seem to imply tliat stme sacred 
place in the northern kingdom is Lieing contrasted 
with Zion. the sanctuary of the south. And if 
there were hi the Bible any sanction to the identifi- 
cation of Salem with Shechem (noticed above), the 
passage 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 j)oint. Zion the sanctuary, however, being 
named in the one member of the verse, 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 paralltC- 
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 dwelling-place in Zion" — 
we imderstand the names as also coijnnte, not " con- 
trasted," each indicating the Holy City as the 
special seat of divine worship, ^\'e are not able 
to trace in the sacred writin<Ts, referred to aliove, 
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 braacb 
or leg of the Mukhna was always Wariy Snjua. 

e The above is the reading of the Vulgate and of 
the '■ Galilean Psalter." But in the Liber Psnlmorutn 
jiixta Htbraicam verilatem, in the Divina Bihtiotheca 
included in the Benedictine edition of Jerome's works, 
the reading is Sdlem. 

f The Arab poet's are said to use the same abbre 
viation (Geseuius, Tlws. p 1422 h). The preference 
of an archaic to a modern name will surprise no 
student of poetry. Few things are of more coQgtaD< 

2790 SALIM 

and the sacred Zion, but find the phrases used in- 
terchangeably, each sometimes witli a secular refer- 
ence, and each sometimes in a spiritual relation. 

S. W. 

SA'LIM (2aAeiV; Alex. 2oA.Aei/x: Salini). 
A place named (.lohn iii. 23) to denote the situa- 
tion of .iEnon, the scene of St. John's last bap- 
tisms — Salim being the well-known town or spot, 
and jEnon a place of fountains, or other wnter, 
near it. There is no statement in the narrative 
itself fixing the situation of Salim, and the only 
direct testimony we possess is that of Eusebius and 
Jerome, who both affirm unhesitatingly ( Onom. 
"yEnon'") that it existed in their day near the 
Jordan, eight Konian miles south of Scythopolis. 
Jerome .adds (under "Salem"') that its name was 
then Salumias. Elsewhere (A/i. nd Evangeluni, 
§§ 7, 8) he states that it was identical with the 
Salem of Melcluzedek. 

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 SniLimi and .4in, 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 27, to correspond with which 
the name in St. John should be 2eya\ei/j. or 

2. L)r. Robinson suggests the modern village of 
Siilim, three miles E. of Nnblus {Bibl. Res. iii. 
3-33), 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 Colonitd CIt. C/iron., No. 
cxxvi. 40-t, who concurs in this opinion of Ur. 
Kobinson, was told of a village an hour east (?) of 
tS(diiii '-named Ain-im, with a copious stream of 
water." The district east of Salim is a blank 
in the maps. Yonun Ijes 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. Or. Barclay {City, etc., p. 5G4) is filled with 
an "assured conviction " that Salim is to be found 
in Wady Seleini, and .^^^non in the copious springs 
of Ain Far(di {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 clovidng 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 Sulim has been lately discov- 
ered by Mr. Van de Velde {Syr. c/- P(d. ii. 345, 
346) in a position exactly in accordance with the 
notice of Eusebius, namely, six English miles south 
of Beisdn, a^d two miles west of the Jordan. On 
the northern liase of Tell Redf/hnli is a site of 
ruins, and near it a INIussulman tomb, which is called 
oy the Arabs Sheykh Salim (see also .Ifemvir, p. 
J45). Dr. Robinson (iii. 333) complains that the 
came is attached only to a Mussulman sanctuary, 
ind also that no ruins of any extent are to be 
found on the spot; hut with regard to the first 
objection, even Dr. Robinson does not dispute that 
the name is there, and that tiie locality is in the 


closest agreement with the notice of Euaebiui. 
As to the second it is only necessary to point to 
Kefr-Saba, where a town (Antipatris), which 80 
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 lieen shown with great probabiUty 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.] 
S(dim fulfills also the conditions implied in the 
name of ^Enon (springs), and the direct .statement 
of the text, that the place contained abundance 
of water. " The brook of Wady CInisnek 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). [^non, Amer. ed.] 

A tradition is mentioned by Reland {PnltEstina, 
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 Judsea. G. 

SAL'LAI [2 syl.] ("'Vp, in pause "'V D [perh. 
basl,-et-mak-er, Ges.] : 2r)A.i; [Vat. FA., though 
not properly separated from preceding word,] Alex. 
2r7Aei: Sdlai). 1. A Benjamite, who with 928 
of his tribe settled in Jerusalem after the Captivity 
(Neh. xi. 8). 

2. (2a\aj: [Vat. Alex. FA.l omit; FA.3 2aA,- 
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 

SAL'LU (-V-P [iceiijlied]: -XaAciju., :$ri\(i; 
Alex. 2a\co in 1 Chr. : Sala, Sellum). \. The 
son of Meshullam, a Benjamite who returned and 
settled in Jerusalem after the Captivity (1 Chr. ix. 
7; Neh. xi. 7). 

2. (Om. in Vat. MS.; [also in Rom., Alex., 
F,A..i; FA.3] 2aAouai'; [Comp. 2oAou:] Sellum.) 
The head of one of the courses of priests who re- 
turned with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 7). Called also 

SALLU'MUS {■S.aKovixos; [Vat. Aid.] Alex. 
'S.aWoiJfj.os' Salumus). Shallum (1 Esdr. is. 
25 ; comp. Ezr. x. 24). 

SAL'MA, or SAL'MON(np^£^, Sttbtt?, 

or ^ID/!^ [clothed, a garment, Ges.] : [in Ruth] 
"ZaKfxuv [Vat. "ZaXfxav]; [in 1 Chr. ii. 11,] Alex. 
'S.aXfj.a.v, but 'S.aXoo/awv both MSS. in Ruth iv. 
[rather 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54; in N. T., 2aA^co;/] ^ 
Snlmon [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 tfiis agrees the statemeni 
in 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54, that he was of the sons oL 
Caleb, and the father, or head man of Bethleheiu- 
Ephratah, a town which seems to have been within 
the territory of Caleb (1 Chr. ii. 50, 51). [Eph- 
ratah; Betiii.khkm.] On the entrance of the 
Israelites into Canaan, Salmon took Rahab of .leri- 
cho to be his wife, and from this union spraiii; the 
Christ. [Raiiaii.] From the circumstance of Sal- 
mon having lived at the timr of the conquest o' 
Canaan, as well as from his being the first pro 


ni'ietoi' of Bethlehem, where his family continued 80 
many centuries, perhaps till the reign of Domiiian 
(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 l)y 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 sliglit differences as 
those in the three forms of this name are scarcely 
worth noticing. Compare e. g. the different forms 
of the name Shimen, the son of Jesse, in 1 Sam. 
xvi. 9; 2 Sam. xiii. 3; 1 Chr. ii. 13: or of Simon 
Peter, in Luke v. 4. &c. ; Acts xv. 14. See other 
examples in Hervey's Ueneal. of our Lord., cc. vi. 
and X. ftloreover, in this case, the variation from 
haliwi 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 authcrity of Dr. 
Kennicott (Dissert i. 184, 543), is not worth re- 
futing." As regards the S;;lma of 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54, 
his connection with Bel^hlehem identifies him with 
the son of Nahshon, and the, change of the final 

n into N 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 haa 
induced some to think that the Salma of 1 Chr. ii. 
51, 54 is a different person from the Salma of 1 
Chr. ii. 11, is more apparent tiian real. It arises 
from the circumstance that Bethlehem Ephratah, 
which was Salmon's inheritance, was part of the 
territory of Caleb, the grandson of l<>phratah; and 
this caused him to be reckoned among the sons of 
Caleb. But it is a complete misunderstanding of 
the language of sucli topographical genealogies to 
suppose that it is meant to be asserted that Salma 
was the literal son of Caleb. Jlention 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, Citron. 
Antiq. i. 171; Hales, Awdijsis, iii. 44; Burring- 
ton, Gene(d. i. 189 ; Dr. Mill, Viiidic. of our Lord's 
Genenl. p. 123, &c. A. C. H. 

SALMAN A'SAR (Sidmnnnsnr). Shalman- 
esEK, king of Assyria (2 Esdr. xiii. 40). 

SAL'MON ("I'l^"'?? [shndy, Ges.; perh. ter- 

SALMON 2791 

vac -ake, Fiirst]: 'SeAfxcey; [Vat. Alex. £p/ia>»':] 
S(dmo7i, 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 menti( iied 
in a verse of perhaps the most difficult of all the 
Psalms* (Ps. Ixviii. 14); and this is probable, 
though the passage is peculiarly dlHicult, and the 
precise allusion intended by the poet seems hope- 
lessly lost. Commentators ditit?r from each other; 
and Fiirst, within 17G pages of his Hmdavrttr- 

buch, differs from himself (see 22tD and ^ITJv'^), 
Indeed, of six distinguished modern connnentatcrs 
— De Wette, Hitzig, Evvald, Hengstenlierg, De- 
litzsch, and Hupfeld — no two give distinctly the 
same meaning; and Mr. Keble, in bis 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 

^1X27?? -'/^'■T' is " Tliou 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 been attributed. The 
allusion which, through the Lexicon of Uesenius, is 
most generally received, is that the words refer to 
the ground being snow-white with liones after a 
defeat of the Canaanite kings; and tiiis may be 
accepted by those who will admit the scarcely per- 
missible meaning, " white as snow," and who can- 
not rest satisfied without attaching some definite 
signification to the passage. 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, " campique ingentes ossilnis al- 
bent " (Virg. Alii. xii. 3t!), and " humanis ossibug 
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 tlie 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 Canaanitisli 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 Ebal and 
Gerizim, and of these Ebal, the highest of the 
two, is only 1,028 feet higher than the city (see 

«■ Eusebius (Chron. Canon, lib. i. 22) has no mia- 
^ving as to the iileutity of Salma. 

fi See a work by lleuss, Der aclit und sechzigste Psalrr 
lin Den/cmai exegeuschtr Nolh und zu Ehrey 
uthser ganzen Ziinfl., Jena, 1851. Independently of it" 
many obscure allusions, the 68th Psalm coutaius thir- 

««cn oiraf Key6\x€va., including 37tt''J^. It may be 
^ierred that this word is scarcely, as Gesenius sug- 
gests aD&log-ous to I'^m^n, ul^^S73^ UlphiU of 

color ; for these words have a signification of color in 
Kal. The really analogous word is H^IO^rT, "he 
niakert it rain," which bears the same relation to 
"lion, "rain," which a'^btTH bears to S^tt?, 

T T ' • : • V V ' 

"snow." Owing, probably, to Hebrew religious con- 
ceptions of natural phenomena, no instance occurs of 

'T'TDTSn used as a neuter in the sense of " it nuns ; " 
I though this would be grammatically admissible. 

2792 SALMON 

Ebal, vol. i. p. 640; and Kobinsoii's Gesenius, p. 
B95 a). If the poet had desired to use the image 
of a snowy niountain, it would have been more 
natural to select Hermon, which is visible from the 
eastern brow of Gerizini, is about 10,000 feet high, 
and is covered with perpetual snow. Still it is not 
lieant 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, 
wbicli led him. to prefer Salmon. 

In despair of understanding the allusion to Sal- 
mon, some suppose that Salmon, i. e. Tsulinon, 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. Since iselem signifies " shade," this is a 
bare et) niological possibility. But no such word 
tts (salmon occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew lan- 
guage; while there are several other words for 
darkness, in difl['erent degrees of meaning, such as 
the ordinary word chosliek, op/iel, ajj/ivlcdi, and 

Unless the passage is given up as corrupt, it 
geems more in accordance with reason to admit 
that there was some allusion present to the poefs 
mind, the key to which is now lost; and this ought 
not to surprise any stliolar 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 se\eral passages 
in the 0. T. respecting the meaning of which we 
Qiust be content to remain ignorant. E. T. 

SALOMON the father of Boaz (Ruth iv. 20, 
21; Matt. i. 4, 5; Luke iii. 32). [Salma.] 

SALMO'NE {Xa\>vn: 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. {tvavriovs, ver. 4; ^paSv- 
wKoovvTe^, ver. 7). [See Myka.] We are then 
told that the ship, on making Ckidus, 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 lirought to the conclusion that the wind 
nuist have been between N. N. \\'. 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. avd Sliip- 
wrec/c of Si. Paid, pp. 73, 74, 2d ed.), and from 
him it is quoted by Conybeare and Howson {Life 
and Epp. of Si. Paul, ii. 393, 2d ed.). To these 
books we must refer for fuller details. We may 

tf Jo*<eph by a former marriage (Epiphan. Heer. 


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 similai 
advantages under the lee of Crete, as far as Fair 
Havens, near Las.ka. J. £ K. 

* The northeast point of Crete is tLe 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 He- 
searches in Crete, Lond. 18(j5). He admits that 
the ancient writers, j:;eiierally 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 
Plaka. His reasons for this conclusion in the 
case of Luke are, Jifst, '• 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 Ijy some 
Levantine navigators called Cape Salmone, to dis- 
tinguish it from Cape Sidero." Purdy {New 
Sailiny Directions, etc., p. 69, Lond. 1834) writes 
the name Salomon, but must refer, of course, to 
the same place. H. 

SA'LOM (SaAo;^: Salom,). The Greek form 
1. of ^hallum,'the father of Hilkiah (Bar. i. 7). 
[SnALLUM.] 2. (Salomvs) of Sain the father of 
Zimri (1 Maec. ii. 26). [Salu.J 

SALO'ME (SaAci^Tj [Heb. peaceful]: Sa- 
lome). 1. The wife of Zebedee, as appears from 
comparing IMatt. 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 he urged that it Kets rid of the diffi- 
culty ari.sing out of two sisters having the same 
name — that it harmonizes John's narrative with 
those of JMatthew and Mark — that this circuitous 
manner of describing his own mother is in char- 
acter with St. John's manner of describing him- 
self—that the absence of any connecting hnk 
between the second and third designations may be 
accoimted 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 var3ing traditions" 
current in the early Church as to Salome's parents. 
worthless as they are in themselves, jet bear a 
negative testimony against the idea of her being 
related to the mother of Jesus. Altogether w« 
can hardly regard the point as settled, though the 

« According to one account she was the daughter Ixxviii. 8): according to another, tb ! wife of J08«pb 

(Nicech. H. E. ii. 3 1. 


vveight of modern criticism is decidedly in favor of 
the former view (see Wieseler, Stud. n. Kril. 1340, 
p. G48). Tlie 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 rftentioned 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 (Hv^: oAs: sal). 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. zxx. 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 offerings 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 in 
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 (Neh. 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 valujible boon on Jerusalem by presenting the 
city with 375 bushels of salt for the Temple ser- 
vice {Ani. 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). 'foo 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 ; comp. 
Joseph. B. J. iv. 8, § 2, aA./iupw5r)s koX &yovo's)\ 
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 
'he lielief of the Jews that salt would, by exposure 
to the air, lose its virtue {jxaiuavSi), Matt. v. 13) 



and become saltless {oivaXoVy Mark x. oOl. The 
same fact is implied ip the expressions of Pliny, 
sal iners (xxxi. 39), sal tabescere. (xxxi. 44); and 
Maundrell {luirly Travels, p. 512, Bohn) asserts 
that he found the surface of a salt rock in this 
condition. The associations coimected 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. ii. 13; Num. xviii. 19; 2 Chr. xiii. 
5), as betokening an indissoluble alliance between 
friends; and again the expression, "salted with 
the salt of the palace" (Ezr. iv. 14), not 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 (Hussell, Aleppo, i. 232); and, on 
the otiier hand, the Persian term for traitor is 
nemekhnram, "faithless to salt" (Gesen. Tlies. 
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-otfering 
(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 (Kz. 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 ouAox^irai. (Horn. II. i. 449), 
the Komans with their mala salsa (Hor. Sat. ii. 3, 
200) or their salsce fruyes (Virg. A^n. ii. 133). 
It may of course be assumed that in all of these 
cases salt was added as a condiment; liut the 
strictness with which the rule was adhered to — 
no sacrifice being ofl^ered without salt (Plin. xxxi. 
41), and still more the probable, though perhapd 
doubtful, admixture of it in incense (Ex. xxx. 35, 
where the word rendered "tempered together" ia 
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 injplied. 
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. (5). 
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^H-n"'^ : „.' 7r<iAe,f 

'Za^SiV, Alex, at iroKis a\a>v: civitas salts). The 
fifth of the six cities of Judah which lay in the 
"wilderness" (Josh. xv. 62). Its proximity to 
En-gedi, and the name itself seem to point to its 
being situated close to or at any rate in the neigh- 
borhood of the Salt Sea. Dr. Robinson {Bibl. 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 Pal. ii 



89; Memoir, p. Ill, and ^fap) mentions a Nahr 
MfUeh which he passed in his route from Wady 
Er-Rmail to Sebbelt, 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 el-Bedim. 
Another of the four, W. 'Amreh (Stjr. cf P. ii. 99; 
Memoir, p. Ill, ifap), recalls the name of Gomor- 
rah, to the Hebrew of which it is very similar. G. 
* SALT SEA. [Sea, the Salt.] 
SALT, VALLEY OF (nb^ S'^3, but 

twice with the article, n^^l' 2 '■ Te/SeAe'^, 
FfyueAeS, KoiXas, and (pdpay^, twv aAuu; Alex. 
r»)/iO[Aa, raijueAa: Vall/'s Salinnrum). 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 Kdoinite 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 wiiich followed; and Joab was left 
behind for six months to consummate the doom 
of the conquered country (1 K. xi. 15, 16; I*s. 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 /las-Sel/i, 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 
njention of the name (" Geniela " and "Mela") 
in the Onomasticon. By .Josephus it is not named 
on either occasion. Seetzen {Reisen, ii. 35G) was 
probalily the first to suggest that it wa.s the brond 
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. 10!.l ). 
The plain is in fact the termination of the Ghor or 
valley through which the Jordan flows from the 
Lake of Tilierias to the Dead Sea. Its N. W. cor- 
ner is occupied by the Khnshm Usdum, a mountain 
of rock salt, between which and the lake is an ex- 
tensive salt marsh, while salt streams and brackish 

a Tbs Received Text of 2 Sara. viii. 13 omits the 
mention of Edomites : but from a oomparisou 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 
irithin brackets having been omitted by the Greek and 
Hebrew scribes respectively, owing to the very close 
resemblance of the words with wliich each clause 

liJihM — Ctt~lS and C^^fS. Thig is the con- 


springs pen-ade, more or less the entire weatera 
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. K.'s 

(a.) The word Ge (S'^Il), 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 Kmek or 
Bika'ah, while Ge ap])ears to be reserved for clefbi 
or ra^■ines of a deeper and narrower character. 

(6.) A primn, 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 yo.\\6y — ha-Arahah — in the sam8 
manner that the .\rabs now call it el- Ghor — Ghor 
being their equivalent for the Hebrew Arabah. 

(c.) The name "Salt," though at first sight 
conclusive, becomes less so on reflection. It does 
not follow, because the Hebrew word melnch signi- 
fies salt, that therefore the valley was salt. A case 
exactly parallel exists at el-Milh, the representative 
of the ancient AIoladah, some sixteen miles south 
of Hebron. Like melnch, milh signifies salt; but 
there is no reason to believe that there is any salt 
present there, and Dr. Kobinson {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 el-Milh is the Arabic representative of the 
Hebrew Moladah, so possibly was f/e-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-JIelach 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^7D [weighed]: ^aXfj-diV, Alex. 
[Comp. Aid.] SoAciJ: Snlu). The fiither of Zimri 
the prince of the Simeonites, who was slain by 
Phinehas (Num. xxv. 14). Called also Salom. 

SA'LUM {"S.aAov/j.; [Vat. corrupt:] Esmen- 
nus). 1. Shallu.m, the head of a family of gate- 
keepers (A. V. "porters") of the Temple (1 Esdr. 
v. 28; comp. Ezr. ii. 42). 

2. (SoAtjjuos; [Aid. 2aAoC;uos:]'] 

jecture of Thenius (Exeg. Handbiich), and is adopted 
by Bunsen (Bibelwerk, note to the passage). Ewald 
has shown (Gesr/i. iii. 201, 202) that the whole passage 

is very much disordered. Dtt7 ti?P*1 should prob- 
ably be rendered "and set up a monument," instead 
of ■' and gat a name " Gesen. ( Thes. p. 1431 6) ; Michaelii) 
(Siippl. No. 2501, and note to Bibd fiir Uns'l.); De 
Wette (Bihel); LXX. Coisl., KaX tSriKev eo-njAwfieVrji' ; 
Jerome (QiKPst. Hrhr.]. ere.xit foruiceni triumphalem. 
Rashi interprets it ''reputation.'' and makes th« 
reputation to have arisen from David's good act in 
burying the dead even of his enemies. 


Bhallum. tlic father of Hilkiah and ancestor of 
Ezra (1 Esdr. viii. 1; Comp. Ezr. vii. 2). Called 
also Sadajiias and Sadom. 

SALUTATIOIST. Salutations may be classed 

Under the two heads of conversational and epistolary. 
The salutation at meeting consisted in eiirly times 
of various expressions of blessing, such as ■• Uod lie 
gracious unto thee" (Gen. xliii. 29); "Blessed be 
thou of the Lord " (Ruth iii. 10; 1 Sam. xv. 13); 
" The Lord l)e with you," " The Lord bless thee " 
(Kuth ii. 4); "The blessing of the Lord be upon 
you; we bless you in tiie 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. 6G). 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 {s/idlum") 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. xliii. 27; Ex. xviii. 7). It is used not 
only iu the case of salutation (in which sense it is 
frequently rendered "to salute," e. y. 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 [jerson (Gen. xUii. 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 shdtom was intro- 
duced here also in the form " Go in peace," or 
rather " Earewell" (1 Sam. i. 17, xx. 42; 2 Sam. 
sv. 9). This* was current at the time of our 
Saviour's ministry (JIark v. 34; Luke vii. 50; 
Acts xvi. 36); and is adopted by Him in his parting 
address to his disciples (John siv. 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; .lohn xx. 
19). The more common salutation, however, at 
this period was borrowed from the Greeks, their 
word ^^^aipeif being used both at meeting (Matt. 
xxvi. 49, xxviii. 9; Luke i. 28), and probalily also 
at departure. Iu modern times the ordinary mode 
of address current in the I'^ast resembles the He- 
brew: Es-seldm aleykum, "Peace be on you" 
(Lane's Mod. Kg. ii. 7), and the terra "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. Thus Boaz ex- 
changed greeting with his reapers (Ruth ii. 4), the 
tra\eller on the saluted the worker in tlie 
field (Ps. cxxix. 8), and members of the same (axw- 
'ly interchanged greetings on rising in tlie 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, 

6 The Greek expression is evidently borrowed from 
the Hebrew, the preposition eU not betokeuing 



paying the compliment only to those whom he con- 
sidered "brethren," i. t. memliers 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 
iujplied a wish for the success of a bad cans* 
(2 John 11). In modern times the Orientals ar* 
famed for the elaborate formality of their greetings, 
wliich occupy a very considerable time; the in- 
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. 2J ; 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 "Oking! live for ever" (Uan. ii. 4, etc.). 
There is no evidence that this ever became cur- 
rent among the -lews: the expression in 1 K. i. 31 
was elicited by the previous allusion on the part of 
David to his own decease. In lieu of it we meet 
with the Greek x«''pe) ''hail! " (Matt, xxvii. 29). 
The act of salutation was accompanied with a va- 
riety of gestures expressive of difii^rent degrees of 
humiliation, and sometimes with a kiss. [Adoka- 
Tio>;; Kiss.] These acts involved the necessity 
of dismounting in case a person were riding or 
driving (Gen. xxiv. 64; 1 Sara. xxv. 23; 2 K. v. 
21). The same custom still prevails in the East 
(Niebuhr's Dcscripl. p. 39). 

The epi-stolary salutations in the period subse- 
quent to the O. r. 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 WTiter placed 
his own name first, and then that of the jierson 
whom he saluted ; it was only in special cases that 
this order was reversed (2 Mace. i. 1, ix. 19; 
1 Esdr. vi. 7). A combination of the first and 
third persons in the terras of the salutation was not 
unfrequent ((ial. i. 1, 2; Philem. 1; 2 Pet. i. 1). 
The term used (either expressed or understood) in 
the introductory salutation was the Greek ■)(^aipiiv 
in an elliptical construction (1 Mace. x. 18; 2 Mace, 
ix. 19 ; 1 Esdr. viii. 9 ; Acts xxiii. 26 ) ; this, however, 
was more frequently omitted, and the only .Vpos- 
tolic passages in which it occurs are Acts xv. 21 
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 tliree Pastoral 
Epistles and in 2 -lohn "grace, mercy, and peace," 
and in Jude " mercy, peace, and lo\e." Ihe con- 
cluding salutation consisted occasionally of a trans- 
lation of the Latin Vdhle (.A.cts xv. 29, xxiii. 30), 
but more generally of the terra ocr7ra{b/xai, " I 
salute," or the cognate substantive, accon)panied 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 Epistl* 
to the Hebrews is very noticeable. 

W. L. B. 

SAM'AEL (SaAa^iTjA; [Sin. 2a/ia;UirjA. ; Aid 
Sa/xaTJA:] Sitbtilnel), a variation for (margin! 

the state into which, but answering to the Hebrew 
y, i« which the person departs. 



Balamiel [Shelumiel] in Jud. viii. 1 (comp. Num. 
i. 6). The form in A. V. is given bv Aldus. 

' B. F. W. 

SAMAFAS [3 syl.] (Sa^uai'aj: Semeias). 1. 
Shk.maiah the Levite in tlie reign of Josiah (1 
Esdr. i. 9; comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 9). 

2. Shemaiah of tlie sons of Adonikam (1 Esdr. 
nii. 39; comp. Ezr. viii. 13). 

3. i'Ze/j.e'i; [Vat. Se^eas; Sin. Se/ueAmj; Aid. 
Sa^aias;] Alex. Se^eiay: oni. in Vulg.) 'I'he 
'■great Samaias," father of Ananias and Jonathas 
( Toh. V. 13). 

SAMA'RIA Cj'Tipffi', i. e. ShomerOn [see 

helow] ; Chald. ^^'I^K' : Sa^apsia, ^(/j.-npiiv, 
2 J/U({pa)r ; " [Alex, very often 'S.a/j.apta, and so Sin. 
or FA. in Is., Jer., Obad.; Sin. -peta in Jud. i. 9, 
iv. 4:] .loseph. 2a/xape(o, hut Ant. viii. 12, § 5, 
2efj.aped>i'- Samctria). 1. A city of Pnlestine, 

'i'he word Shomeron means, etyniologically. " ])er- 
taining to a watch," or "a watch-niountaiu ; " and 
we should almost be inclined to thinli that the 
peculiarity of the situation of Samaria srave occ.i- 
Bion to its name. In the territory oriLiinally be- 
longing to the tribe of Joseph, about six luiles 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 steej) yet 
accessible sides, and a long fiat top. This hill was 
chosen by Omri, as the site of the capital of the 
kingdom of Israel. I'he first capital after the seces- 
sion of the ten trilies had been Shechem itself, 
whither all Israel had come to make ItehoVjoam 
king. On the separation being fully accomplished, 
Jeroboam relniilt 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 Ijurnt 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 C|'"1~ipi27 "inrT: rb 

opos rh '2,ifx7)pwv) of Shemer O^?^: 2e/ur)p, 
Joseph, ^(fiapos) for two talents of silver, and liuilt 
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). [O.mki, 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 neighlior- 
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, n. c. 925, 
Samaria retained its dignity as the capital of the 


ten tribes. Ahab built a temple to Baal then 
(1 K. xvi. 32, 33); and from this circumstance 
portion of the city, possibly fortified by a separate 
wall, was called "the city of the house of Baal" 
(2 K. X. 26). 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 thf 
siege was ineffectual. On the latter, i.ideed, 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, Sarcv 
ria was taken, alter a siege of three years, by Shs.]- 
maneser, king of Assyria (2 K. xviii. 9, 10), and 
the kiiiL'dom of the ten tribes was put an end to. 
[See lieldw, Xo. 3.] Some years afterwards the 
district of which Samaria was the centre was re- 
peopled by F.sarhaddon; but we do not hear espe- 
cially of the city until the days of Alexander the 
(ireat. That conqueror took the city, which seems 
to have somewhat recovered itself (luiseb. C/irun. 
ad ann. .-Vljr. li;84), killed a large portion of the 
inhabitants, and suffered the remainder to settle 
at Shechem. [Shecme.m; Syciiak.] He replaced 
them by a colony of Syro-Macedonians, and gave 
the adjacent territory {^a/xapi'iTLs x'«V"' '" ^'^^ 
.lews 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 (■n-6\ts oxvpu- 
Tarrj). 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 
sis:ht 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 I'rideaux {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 
tliese trenches." It should also be recnllected that 
the hill of .Samaria was lower than the hills in its 
neighborhood. This may account for the existence 
of these springs. Josephus descrilies the extrem- 
ities to which the inhabitants were reduced during 
this siege, nmch in the same way that the authoi 
of the Book of Kings does during that of Ben 
hadad (comp. Ant. xiii. 10, § 2, with 2 K. vi. 25). 
John Hyrcanus" reasons for attacking Samaria were 
the injuries which its iidiabitants had done to the 
people of Marissa, colonists und allies of the Jewa 
This confirms what was said above, of the cession 
of the Samaritan neighborhood to the Jews }j 
Alexander the Great. 

After this disaster (which occurred in b. c. 109) 
the Jews inhabited what remained of the city; a. 

" The prevailing LXX. form in the 0. T. is 'S.afj.d- 
Kta, ^Tith the following remarkable exceptions : 1 K. 
tvi. 24, Se^iepixiV . . . Sf^T^puii' (Mai, 2ajU7jpi6i' ) ; 
Alex Eiiepuiv . . , So/^>)puji' :] Ezr. iv. 10, 2.oix6- 

paiv (Mai, iu);u,ojp(oi') ; Neh. iv. 2; Is. vii. 9, 2o/[i<> 

I> No such passage, however, now exists in Beiys 
Diiti of Tulela. See the editions of Ashcr and of 
1 .Un. 


least we find it in tlieir possession in the time of 
Alexander Jannaius {Ant. xiii. 15, § 4), and until 
Ponipey |2;a\e it baclt to the descendants of its 
original inhabitants (roty olKy)Topaiv)- These 
oiK7]Topes niay possibly have been the Syro-JMace- 
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 rebuilt {Ant. xiv. 5, § 3). But 
ita more effectual rebuilding was undertaken liy 
Herod the Great, to wliom it had been granted l)y 
Augustus, on the death of Antony and Cleopatra 
(Ani. xiii. 10, § 3, xv. 8, § 5; B. J. i. 20, § 3). 
He called it Sebnsle, "Ze^acTTri = Au(juU<t, 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- 

S AM ARIA 2797 

iiificent temple, dedicated to the Caesar. It w«» 
colonized by G,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 conuuanding 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 nather a portion of lite distinct to 
which, even in older times, it had extended its 
name. Our Version, indeed, of Acts viii. 5 asys 
that Philip the deacon " went down to tlie city of 
Samaria; " but the Greek of the passage is simply 
e(s TTciAii' rrjs ^a/xapeias. And we m.ay fairly 
argue, both from the absence of the definite article 

Sebusliyeh, the ancient Samaria, from the E. N. E. 

Behind the city are the mountains of Ephraim, verging on the Plain of Sharon. Tlie Mediterranean Sea !■ 
in the furthest disfcmce.a The original sketch from which this view is taken wag 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 terra employed would have been 
Sebdsie, that some one city of the district, the 
name of which is not specified, was in the mind 
of the writer. In verse 9 of the same chapter 
"the people of Samaria" represents rh ^dvos ttj? 
5a|Uapeias; and the phrase in verse 2.5, "many 
Tillages of the Samaritans," shows that the opera- 
Hons of evangelizing were not confined to the city 
.if Samaria itself, if they were ever carried on 
"here. Comp. Matt. s. 5, " Into any city of the 
Samaritans enter ye not;" and .lohn iv. 4, 5, 
where, after it has been said, "And He must needs 
po through Samaria," obviously the district, it is 
»ulijoined, '' Then cometh He to a city of Samaria 
tailed Sychar." Henceforth its history is very un- 
connected. Septiinius Severus planted a Roman 
Bolony there in the beginning of the third century 

o * The sea i« vis\Me with the naked eye from the 
(Of of the bill. U. 

(Ulpian, Leg. J. de Cennibus, quoted by Dr. Rob- 
inson). Various specimens of coins struck on the 
spot have been preserved, extending from Nero to 
Geta, the brother of Cai-acalla (Vaillant, in Nu- 
mism. Imper., and Noris, quoted by Reland). But. 
though tlie seat of a Roman colony, it could not 
liave been a place of much political importance. 
We find in the Codex of Theodo.sius, that by a. d. 
409 the Holy Land had lieen divided into Paltestina 
Prima, Secunda, and Tertia. Pala?8tina Prima 
included the country of the Philistines, Samaria 
(the district), and the northern part of .ludft'a; 
but its capital was not Sebaste, but < 'a?8area. In 
an ecclesiastical point of view it stood rather higher. 
It was afi episcopal see probably as early as the 
third century. At any rate its bishop was present 
amongst those of Palestine at the Council of Nictea, 
A. D. 32.5, and suliscriiied its acts as " INIaximus 
(al. Mariiuis) Seliastemis." The names of some 
of his successors have lieen preseived — the InttJt 
of them meutioaed is Pelagius, who attended th« 


Synod at Jerusalem, a. d. 536. The title of the 
see occurs in the earlier Greek Notitke, and in 
the later Latin ones (Kelaiid, PuL jip. 214-229). 
Sebaste fell into the hands of the Mohammedans 
durinp; the siege of Jerusalem. In the course of 
the Crusades a Latin bishopric was established 
there the title of which was recognized by the 
Konian 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, Sebiisiieh, 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 tl;e main street of Herod's city, 
here, as at Palmyra and Damascus, adorned by a 
colonnade on each side, still lines the t«ipmost ter- 
race of the hill." But the fragmentary aspect of 
the whole place exhibits a present fulfillment of the 
prophecy of Mieah (i. 6), though it may have been 
fulfilled more than once previously by the ravaijes 
of Shalnianeser or of .John Hyrcanus. " I will 
make .Samaria as an hea]) of the field, and as 
plantings of a vineyard: and I will ])our down the 
stones thereof into the valley,'and I will discover 
the foundations thereof" (Mic. L 0; comp. Hos. 
xiii. 16). 

St. Jerome, whose acquaintance with Palestine 
imparts a sort of probabihty to the tradition which 
prevailed so strongly in later days, asserts *hat 
Sebaste, which he invariably identifies with Samarm, 
was the place in which St. John the Baptist was 
imprisoned and suffered death. He also makes it 
the burial-place of the prophets Klislia and Obadiah 
(see various passages cited by Reland, pp. 980, 1)81 ). 
E]iiplianins is at great pains, in his work Ai/i: 
IJtefines (lib i. ), in which he treats of the heresies 
of tlie Samaritans with singular minuteness, to 
account for the origin of their name. He inter- 
prets it as D'*"]X3ti7, (pv\aK€s, or "keepers." The 
hill on which the city was built was, he says, 
designated Sonier or Sonieron {'Xoo/, ^oc/xopwv), 
from a certaui Somoron the son of Somer, whom 
he considers to have been of the stock of tiie 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. Kol)inson's 
Biblical Rfseorc/ies, ii. 127-133; lieland's Pakes- 
iina, pp. 344, 979-1)82; liaumer's Pdlihtinn, pp. 
144-148, notes ; Van de Yelde's Sijria ami Pales- 
tine, i. 303-388, and ii. 29.5, 290, Map, and Me- 
vu'ir ; Dr. Stanley's Sinai itntl Palestine, pp. 
242-246; and a short article by Mr. G. Williams 
in the Diet, of Geng. Dr. Kitto, in his Piiysicnl 
Uistm-y oj' Palestine, pp. cxvii., cxviii., has an in- 
'eresting reference to and extract fron> Sandys, 
iUustrative 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. 60 (tvu ^afxapeiav- [Sin. .Alex, -piaf-] 
Snmariam) h evidently an ermr. At any rate 
the well-known Samaria of the Old and New I'es- 


taments cannot be intended, for it is obvious that 
.ludas, in passing from Hebron to the land of the 
Philistines (Azotus), could not make so immense a 
detvur. The true correction is doubtless supplied 
by Josephus {Ant. xii. 8, § 6), who has Marissa 
{i. e. Makesha), a place which lay in the road 
from Heliron to the Philistine Plain. One of the 
ancient Latin Versions exhibits the same reading , 
which is accepted by Ewald (Gescli. iv. 361) and a 
host of commentators (see Grimm, Kurzy. Kxe<j. 
Handb., on the passage). Drusius proposed Sha- 
araim ; but this is hardlj' so feasible as Maresha 
and has no external support. 

3. Sama'kia ([2a^ap€i'a; Alex, very often 2cf 
fiapia, and so Sin. in 1 ]\Iacc. 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/xap6rT(?, -Alex. -ptTis, and so Sin. except 1 
Mace xi. 28; — (woman) "of Samaria," John iv. 
9, 'Sa/nape'iTts, but Tisch. in his 8th ed. of the N. 
r., 2a/xapiTis; — ] Joseph. X'^P" ^a/xap^wv; Ptol 
2o/iopi5, 2a,uap6ia: Sajnaria). 

Samak'itans (D'^3*"ipti? : ^a/xape^Tai; [Ales. 

loLfxapirai, and so Sin. and Tisch. (8th ed.) in 
lilt N. T. ;] Joseph. 'Xafj.apils- \_Samaritce'\). 

There are lew questions in Biblical philology 
upon"Hvbich, in recent times, scholars have come to 
sue!) opposite conclusions as the extent of the terri- 
tory to which the former of these words is applica- 
ble, and the orisrin of the people to which the latter 
is ap[)lied in the N. T. But a probable solution of 
'hem 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 Samakitan 
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 lie) instead of the children of Israel." 

Wexit 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- 
nianeser, so the extent of the word Samaritan would 
have \aried. 

Samajiia at first included all the tribes over 
which .lerolioam made himself king, whether east 
or west of the river Jordan. Hence, e\en before 
the city of Samaria existed, we find the " old 
prophet who dwelt at Betiiel " 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 Saniaiia" (1 K. xiii. 32), /. e. 
of course, the cities of which Samaria was, or was 
to lie, the head or capital. In other places in the 
iiistorical books of the 0. 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, nnich 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 •• c^ll 
of Samaria"; in Amos (iii. 9) the "mountains >. 


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, " Ful, 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 Hara, and to the river Gozan " 
(1 Chr. v. 26). This would be a second limitation. 
But the latter of these kings went further: " He 
took Ijon, and Abel-beth-niaachah, and .lanoah, 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 Gilend, the Gadites, and the Keubenites, and the 
Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the river Ar- 
Don, even Gilead and Bashan " (2 K. x. 32, 33). 
This, however, as we 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-pilneser 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. is. 1; 1 jMacc. v. 15). 
And no 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 recogijized by portions of 
Asher, Issachar, and Zebulun, and even of Ephraim 
and Manasseh (2 Chr. xxx. 1-26). i\Ien 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, tv\o or three jears 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 
?ery small field of operations. Samaria (the city). 
Hid a few adjacent cities or villages only, repre- 
sented that dominion which had once extended 
from Bethel to Dan northwards, and from the 
MediteiTanean to the borders of Syria and Am- 
■non eastwards. This is further confirmed by 
that we read of Josiah's progress, in b. c. 6-tl, 


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 number of cities and villages occupied 
by the persons then called Samaritans been at aL 

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. Shahnaneser, as we have seen (2 K. 
xvii. 5, 6, 26), carried Israel, i. e. the remnant of 
the ten tribes which still acknowledged Hoshea'a 
authority, into Ass3ria. 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 y 
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 V 

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 instcud of the 
children of Israel" (2 K. xvii. 24). There is no 
mention whatever, as in the ease 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 impossilde 
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 
Persians dragged {aayqvevaavris) 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 crayrivevftv is described, and is com- 
pared to a hunting out of the population (iKdripeu- 
eiv)- Such a capture is presently contrasted with 
the capture of other territories to which aayqi/ev- 
eiv was not applied. Josephus's phrase in refer- 
ence to the cities of Samaria is that Shalmaneser 
"transplanted all the people" {Ant. 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 
nuich 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 broughj 
men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and k^m 
Ava (Ivah, 2 K. xviii. 34), and from Hamath. and 
from Sepharvaira, and placed them in the citie* uf 


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- 
Yia,, 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 IsraiJites" {Anl. ix. 14, §§ ], 3; x. 9, § 7); 
but he must have been led to this interpretation 
Bimply by the juxtaposition of the two transactions 
in the Hebrew text. The Samaritans themselves, 
in Ezr. iv. 2, 10, attril)Uted their colonization not 
to Shalmaneser, but to " Esar-haddon, king of As- 
Bur," 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. 077, 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 (han 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 he preferred. It 
coincides with the termination of the sixty-five years 
of Isaiah's prophecy, delivered n. 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 clifference 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 Hiu) who had 
once called the land his own, and whose it was 
still, (iod's displeasure was kindled, and they were 
infested by beasts of prey, wliicli had prol>ably 
increased to a great extent before their entrance 
upon it. " The Lord sent lions among them, which 
Blew gome of them." On their explaining their 
miserable condition to the king of Assyria, he de- 
ipatched one of the captive priests to teach them 
" how they shoidd fear the Lord." Tlie priest 
came accordingly, and henceforth, in the language 
of the sacred historiai , they " feared the Lord, and 
served their graven in.iges, both their children and 
their children's childi^n: as did their fathers, so 
io they unto this day ',' (2 K. xvii. 41). This last 
aeutence was probably ijjserted by Ezra. It serves 
two purposes: 1st, to qralify the pretensions of the 
&iuiaritans of Ezra's tiriie to be pure worshippers 


of God — they were no more exclusively his att 
vants, than was the Koman emperor who desired 
to place a statue of Christ in the Pantheon enti- 
tled to be called a Christian ; and, 2dly, to sho« 
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 Cutha?ans had for- 
merly belonged to the inner parts of Persia and 
Media, but were then called ' Samaritans,' taking 
the name of the counti'y to which they were re- 
moved," says Josephus (Ant. x. 9, § 7i. And 
again he sa3's (A7it. ix. 14, § 3) they are called "in 
Hebrew ' Cuthseans.' but in Greek ' Samaritans.' " 
Our Lord expressly tenns them a.\\oyeye7s (Luke 
xvii. 18); and Josephus' whole account of them 
shows that he believed them to have been yueroi/coi 
a\\oe6ve7s, though, as he tells us in two places 
(An/, ix. 14. § .3, and xi. 8, § C), they sometimes 
gave a different account of their origin. But of 
this by-and-by. A gap occurs in their history 
until .fudah 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 religion, they assert, 
is the same as that of the two trilies, therefore 
they have a right to share in that great religious 
undertaking. But they do not call it a natiunat 
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 alieady, but we have no 
information that it had. Be this, however, as it 
may, the .lews do not listen favoralily 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 Elarius Hystaspis, is. c. 519. 

The feud, thus unhappily begun, grew year by 
year more inveterate. It is jjrobable, 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. JSIatters at length came to ? 
climax. About u. C. 409, a certain Manasseh, a 
man of priestly lineage, on being expelled froir 
Jerusalem by Nehemiah for an unlawful marriage 
obtained permission from the Persb^n king of hit 
day, IJarius Nothus, to build a temple on Mounl 
Gerizim, for the Samaritans, with whom he hat 
found refuge. The only thing wanted to crystal- 
lize the ojiposition between the two races, namely 
a rallying point for schismatical worship, being 
now obtained, their animosity became more intenst 
than ever. The Samaritans are said to have doM 


[everything in their power to annoy the Jews. 
They would refuse hospitality to pily;rims on tlieir 
road to Jerusalem, as in our Lord's case. They 
would even waylay tlieui 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 nuist ha\e 
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-firps 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 
watchers at Mycenie. Those who "sat by the 
waters of Babylon " looked for this signal with 
much interest. It enabled them to share in the 
devotions of those who were in their fixther-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 kiiidling a rivid dame 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 the 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 Jews themselves, 
employing the expression not unfrequently, " The 
Jews indeed do so and so; but we, observing the 
letter of the Law, do otherwise." 

The Jews, on the other hand, were not more 
conciliatory in their treatment of the Samaritans. 
The copy of the Law possessed by that people they 
declared to be the legacy of an apostate (Manasseh), 
and east grave suspicions upon its genuineness. 
Cei'tain other Jewish renegades had from time to 
time taken refuge with the Samaritans. Hence, 
by degrees, the Samaritans claimed to partake of 
Jewish blood, especially if doing so happened to 
suit their interest (.Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, § G; 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 sabliatical year, on the 
plea that as true Israelites, descendants of Kphraim 
and Manasseh, sons of Joseph, they refrained from 
cultivating their land in that year. Alexander, on 
sross-questioning them, discovered the hollowness 
jf their pretensions. (They were greatly discon- 
'.evted at their fiiilure, 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 'I'hou 
greater than our father Jacob, who gave iis the 
well? " A question which she puts without recol- 
lecting that she had just Ijefore 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 Cuth.eans, 
mere strangers from Assyria. They accused them 
of worshipping the idol-gods buried long ago under 
the oak of Shechem (Gen. xxxv. 4). They would 
have no dealings with them that they could possi- 
bly avoid.* " Thou art a Samaritan and hast a 
devil," was the mode in which they expressed 
themselves when at a loss for a bitter reproach. 
Everything that a Samaritan had touched was aa 
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 village to Christ would be 
not unduly avenged by calling down fire from 

" Ye know not what spirit ye are of," said the 
large-hearted Son of Alan, 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 
thorougiily 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 sh.all be witnesses to Me in 
Jeru&ilem and in all .ludaja, 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 Levile. 
And the very worsliip of the two races is described 
by Him as difTerent in character. " Ye worship ye 

« ■' This fact," says Dr. Trench, " is mentioned by 
Makrizi (see De Siicy's Clirest. Arahe, "\\. 159), who 
iffli'uis that it was this which put the Jews ou making 
iccuriite calculations to determine the moment of the 
lew moon's appearance (comp. Schoettgeu's Hor. Heb. 


i This prejudice had, of course, sometimes to give 
way to nece.seity, for the disciples had goue to Sychar 
« buy food, while o\ir Lord was talking with the 

woman of Samaria by the well in its suburb (John iv. 
8). And from Luke ix. 52, we le;irn 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 theii 
ordinary scruples to the change which his esaoijpl* 
had already wrought in them. 



i^now Kot what," this is said of the Samaritans: 
" We liiiow what we worship, for salvation is of 
the Jewa " (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 abandoned 
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 
relisjion 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 from Shechem and their other impoverished 
settlements towards their sacred hill ; still retained 
their nationality, and could not coalesce with the 
Jews : — 

'Of OS T aAei(i)a t' eyx^"'* TavTW KVTei, 
AixoiTTaTOvvT' av ov <f>C\uj<; Trpoa-evvcTroii, 

Not indeed that we must suppose that the whole 
of the country called in oiu- Lord's time Samaria 
was in the possession of the Cuthaean Samaritans, 
or that it had ever l)een so. " Samaria," says 
Josephus (B. J. iii. -3, § -i), "lies between Judaea 
and Galilee. It connnences from a village called 
Giiisea (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 different from that of 
ludsa. 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 almndantly 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 ricii- 
.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 Cuthseau 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 Sycliar (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 
Gerizim. Afterwards it became more prominently 
10, and there, on the destruction of the temple on 
Serizim, by John Hyrcanus (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9, 


§ I), they built themselves a temple. The modeia 
representative of Shechem is Ndblui, a corruption 
of Neapolis, or the "New Town," 'nuilt 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 ac 
exactness of minute ceremonial which the Jews 
themselves have long intermitted : 

"Quanquam diruta, servat 
Ignem Trojanum, et Ve.stam edit Alba minorem." 

The Samaritans were very troublesome both to 
their Jewish neighliors and to their Roman mas- 
ters, in the first century, A. d. I'ilate chastised 
them with a severity which led to his own down- 
fall (Joseph. A7il. xviii. 4, § 1), and a slaughter of 
10,600 of them took place under Vespasian (5. 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 (nr/v. Hiereses, lib. i.), in the fourth 
century, considers them to be the chief and most 
dancjerous 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 Jews, insonuich that a legal interpretation 
of the Gospel was described as a tendency to 
'S.a.jj.apsiTiafj.ds or ^lov^aCtrfiSs. This contusion, 
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 sufficiently 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 Seahger. 
(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 
Reptrtorium fur Biblische unci Morrjenlandische 
Litierntur, vol. xiii. They are of great archseo- 
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 Correspondance, 
des Samarilains, etc., in Notices et Extr. des MSS. 
de la Bibliotli. du Roi, etc., vol. xii. And, for 
more modern accounts of the people themselves, 
Robinson's Biblical Researches, ii. 280-311, iii. 
129-30; Wilson's Lands of the Bible, ii. 46-78; 
Van de V^elde's Syria and Palestine, ii. 296 seq.; 
Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, p. 240; Rogers's 
Notices of the Modern Samaritans, p. 25; Grove's 
account of their Day of Atonement in Vacation 
Toimsts for 1861; and Dr. Stanley's, of their 
I'assover, in his Lectures on the Jewish Church, 
App. iii. [Passover, vol. iii. p. 2357 f., Amer. 

The view maintained in the above remarks, ai 


jO the purely Assyrian origin of the New Samari- 
laiis, is tliat of >Suicer, Helanti, Hammond, Drusius 
in tlie t'ritici Sacri, Maldonatus, Hengstenberg, 
Hiivernick, Hobinson, and Dean Trencli. Tlie 
reader is referred to the \ery 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. Tliere is no doubt in the world 
that it was the ancient view. We have seen what 
Josephus said, and Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, 
Chrysostom, and Tlieodoret, say the same tiling. 
Socrates, it must be admitted, calls the Samaritans 
a7ro'crxi<''/^'i 'lovhaiwv, but he stands nlmost alone 
among the ancients in making this assertion. Ori- 
gen and Cyril 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, Diillin- 
ger, and Dr. Davidson, have held a different view, 
which may be expressed thus in Dollinger's own 
words: "In the northern part of the Promised 
Land (as opposed to Juda'a ]iroper) there grew up 
a mingled race 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" {fleicknthuin und Judcn- 
(h II III, p. 739, § ,7)- If the words of Scripture are 
to be taken alone, it does not appear how iliis view 
is to be maintained. At any rate, as Drusius ob- 
serves, the oidy mixture was that of Jewish apos- 
tate fugitives, long after Esarhaddon's colonization, 
not at the time of the colonization. But 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 upon its de- 
fense. Mr. Grove is also in favor of it. See his 
notice already mentioned. 

The authority due to the copy of the Law pos- 
sessed by the Samaritans, and the determination 
whether the Samaritan reading of Deut. xxvii. 4, 
Geriziiii, or that of the Hebrew, Ebnl, is to be 
preferred, are discussed in the next article. [See 
S.\iiARiT.\x Pentateuch; Ebal; Gehizim; 
SriECHEM; SiCHEM; Sychak.] J. A. H. 

* On Samaria and tlie Samaritans see the el.ab- 
orate article of.!. H. Petermami in Herzog's Rea/- 
Eiicykl. xiii. 359-391 (conip. his Etisen tin Orient, 
Leipz. 1860-61, i. 209-2i)2). See also John Mills's 
Three Manlhs' Resilience in NtiOlus, Lond. 1864, 
and a series of learned articles by Dr. Geiger in 
the Ztitsc/ir. d. deutschen murijenl. GeselUciiaft 
from 1862 to 1868. A.' 

* SAMARITAN. [Samakia, 3.] 

lion of the commonly received Hebrew Text of the 
Mosaic Law, in use with the Samariums, and writ- 
ten in the anci«nt Hebrew {Ibri), or so-called 

tiDguisbed from i^"1T37, D'^nVi'S nri3. Oomp. 
Siftt'i- 21 b, Str. Mea:. 5, 2; Toslfla Sijnh. 4; Synkedr. 
12 », -Mry. ^er. I, 9, Sola Jer. 7, 2, aq. 


Samaritan character." This recension is found 
vaguely quoted by some of the early Fathers of the 
Church, under the name of " Yla\ai6Tarov 'E^pai' 
Khv Th napa lafxapeirals," i" contradisthiction tc 
the " '2;8paiVc^i' rh irapa 'louSaiois; " further, as 
" Samaritianorum Volumina," etc. Thus Origen on 
Num. xiii. !,...."& kuI oura 4k tovtcov 2a- 
/xapfLTwy 'EjBpa'iKov yueTe(8aAo/J.e^';" and on Num. 
xxi. 13, . . . ^'' a, iP fj.6vois Tuiv '^nSiv €vpo- 
fx€v,'^ etc. Jerome, Prol. to Kings: " Samaritani 
etiani Pentateuchum Moysis Midem (? 22, like 
the " Hebrews, Syrians and Chaldseans") litteria 
habent, figuris tantum et apicibus discrepantes." 
Also on Gal. iii. 10, " quam ob causaiu " — (viz. 
'ETri/carapaTos iras hs ovk e/u^uevet eV ttckti rols 
yeypaixixevois , being quoted there from Deut. xxvii. 

26, where the Masoretic text has only ""LI'S Tl~lS 

nsTH nmnn nai nw D'^p"' sb— "cursed 

lie he that confirmeth not ^ the words of this Law 
to do them ; " while the LXX. reads it as avdpcairos 
. . -Kaai rots \6yois) — ' quam ob causam Sa- 
maritanorum IIebra;a volumina relegens in\eni 

v3 scriptura esse; " and he forthwith charges the 

Jews with having deliberately taken out the 73, 
because they did not wish to be bound indlvidunUy 
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) — '■•AH 
his commandments and his statutes." Eusebius 
of Caesarea 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 tlie Sam. Pent, distinctly 
and contemptuously as a clumsily forged record: 
" You have falsified'^ your Pentatcucli," said R. 
Eliezer b. Shimon to the San]aritan scrilses, 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 auglit by it" (comp. Jer. Sotali 
21 b, cf. 17; B'lbli 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 
he lie (unknown, however, according to Jer. ^leg. 
6, 2, also to the people of -lerusalem). •' Who hat 
caused you to blmulerV 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 pass.age in question, which enjoins 
tliat the wife of tlie dead man shall not be " with- 
out " to a stranger, but that the brother should 

marry her: they, however, taking n'-inn 
( = Vin7) to be an epithet of jltt-'S, "wife," 

ft The A. v., following the LXX., and perhaps Ln 
ther, has inserted the word all. 


translated "the outer wife," i. e. the lietrollwd 
only (Jer. JeOnm. 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 readied Europe, and it began to he pro- 
nounced a fiction, and the plain words of the 
Church Fathers — the better known authorities — 
who quoted it, were sulijected to subtle interpre- 
tations. Suddenly, in IGIG, Pietro della Yalle, 
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 Aehille Harley de Sancy to the Library 
of the Oratory in Paris, and in 1()28 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, with few 
emendations from other codices, by \Valton, — 
Morinus, the first editor, wrote his Exercitatiunts 
Ecdesiaslicce in utruinqiie Samarilanonim Ptntn- 
teuclium, in which he pronounced the newly found 
Codex, with all its innumerable A^ariants from the 
Masoretic text, to be infinitely superior to the lat- 
ter: in fact, the unconditional and speedy emenda- 
tion of the Received Text thereliy was urged most 
Authoritatively. And now the imjjulse was given 
to one of the fiercest and most barren literary and 
theological controversies: of which more anon. 
Between 1G20 and 1630 six additional copies, partly 
complete, partly incomplete, were acquired liy 
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 Blilan, was brought to 
Italy in 1G21. Peiresc procured two more, one of 
which was placed in the Koyal Library of Paris, 

(250) 31 □"'HMti yj:p I ]ltt7S"in ~I2D HTn [Masoret. Cod. 12 Sidras (Parshioth), 50 Chapters]. 

(200) D\"!Sa " ''^Wn " " [ " 11 " 40 " ] 

(i30)D''a7i'bffi'TnH^ " '"tt^'^btt^n " " [ » lo " 27 " 1 


and one in the Barberini at Rome. Thus the num 
lier 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 'J'argum 
(? Sam. Version), in parallel columns, 4to, on 
parchment, was brought from Ndblus by Jlr. Grove 
in 1861 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 the book, exhibit 
none of those varieties of shajie so frequent in the 
Wasor. Text; such as majuscules, minuscules, sus- 
pended, inverted letters, etc. Their material ia 
vellum or cotton-paper; the ink used is black in 
all cases save the scroll used by the Samaritans at 
NCMus, 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 liespeak attention." The whole 
Pentateuch is divided into nine hundred and sixty- 
four paragrajDhs, 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 : — 


T^^^ ■ -1 



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 period in which they were 
written. To none of the MSS., however, which 
have as yet reached Europe, can be assigned a 
higher date than the 10th Christian century. The 
BcroU used in Nablas bears — so the Samaritans 
pretend — the following inscription : " I, Abisha, 

« r^'^ and nan, IV aud li7, "151 and 

-131, bw and bs, bss^ and b3i4\ sni7;^ 

»nd S'np'), E? and W, the suffixes at the end of a 
iford, the n without a dagesh, etc., are thus pointed 
'ut to the reader. 

» smmsi sabs. 

c It would appear, however (see Archdeacon 
aua's notice in the Partlienon, 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 ol 
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. F.jiist. Sam. SichemiUirum ad Jubum Lu- 
Mphum, Cizffi, 1088; Antiq. Led. Orient, p. 123; 
Huntingtoni Epist. pp. 49, 56: Eichhorn's Reper- 
toriumf. bibl. mid morg. Lit., tom. ix., etc.) But 
no European '' has ever succeeded in finding it ia 

that Mr. Levysohn, a person lately attached to the 
Russian staff in Jerusalem, hus found the inscription 
iu question " going through the middle of the body ot 
the Text of the Decalogue, and extending through 
three columns.'' Considering that the Samaritans 
themselves told Huntington, " that this in.scription 
had been in their scroll once, but must have been 
enised by some wicked hand." this startling piece ol 
information nmst be received with extreme caution : 
no less so than the other more or less vague state 
ments with respect to the labors and pretended diecf>T 
eries of Mi Levysohn. See note, p. 2810. 


this scroll, however grent the pains bestowed upon 
the search (comp. Eichhorn, Einkit. ii. 132); and 
even if it had been found, it would not have de- 
served the slightest credence. 

^^'e liave briefly stated above that the Extrcita- 
tiones of Morinus, which placed the Samaritan Pen- 
tateuch far above the Received Text in point of 
genuineness, — partly on account of its af,n'eeiiig in 
many places with the LXX., and paitly on ac- 
count of its superior "lucidity and liarmony," — 
exL'ited and kept up for nearly two hundred years 
one of the most extraordinary controversies on rec- 
ord. Characteristically enouirh, 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 
evei'y new literary discovery was formerly hailed, 
the innate 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 for 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 ])ronii)ted Morinus and his followers, Cap- 
pellus and others, to prove to the Heformers what 
kind of value was to lie attached to iJieir authority: 
the received form of the Hible, 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 influence and inspiration of 
which the Scriptures were interpreted and ex- 
pounded by the Roman Church, could be relied 
upon. On the other hand, most of the " Anti/iw- 
rinlins " — De Muys, Hottinger, St. Morinus, 
Buxtorf, Fuller, Leusden, Pfeifter, etc. — instead 
of patiently and critically examining the subject 
and refuting their adversaries liy arguments which 
were within their reach, as they are within ours, 
directed their attacks against the persons of the 
Morinians, and thus their uusguided 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, I.obstein. 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 {Kxerckt. 
Phil, ill Houbiy. ProLm\jns,<\- P)at. 1755). It was 
from his day forward allowed, almost on all hands. 


that the Masoretic Text was the genuine one, but 
that in douljtful cases, when the Samaritan had an 
•'unquestionably clearer" reading, this was to be 
adopted, since a certain amount of \alue, however 
limited, did attach to it. Michaelis, Eichhorn, 
Bertholdt, Jahn, and the majority of modern crit- 
ics, adhered to this opinion. Here the matter 
rested until 1815, when Gesenius [Di' Pent. E'am. 
On(jine, Iiuhle, et Auctoritate) abolished the ;em- 
nant of the authority of the Sara. I'ent. So mas- 
terly, lucid, and clear are his arguments and his 
proofs, that there has been and will lie 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 desigri of conform- 
ing certain passages to the Samaritan mode of 
thought, speech, and foith — more especially to 
show that the INIourit Gerizira, upon which their 
temple stood, was the spot chosen and indicated by 
God to Moses as the one upon 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 doulitful, and towards filling up all 
apparent imperfections : either by repetitions or bj 
means of newly-invented and badly-fitting word, 
and phrases. It must, however, be premised that 
except two alterations (Ex. xiii. 7. where the Sam 
reads " tiix days shalt thou eat unleavened bread,'' 
instead of the received " Seven dajs," and the 

change of the word nTTn, " There shall not 6e," 

into rr^nn, "Uve," 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 connnonly received arrangement 
of (iesenius, who divides all these readings into 
eight classes; to which, as we shall afterwards 
show, I'rankel has suggested the addition of two or 
three others, while Kirchheim (in his Hebrew work 

^I^ITSlti? '^D'^D) enumerates thirteen,'' which w» 
will name hereafter. 

1. The Jirst class, then, consists of readings by 
which emendations of a grammatical nature have 
been attempted. 

(a.) The quiescent letters, or so-called matret 
lectionis, are supplied.'' 

(6.) The more poetical forms of the pronoims, 
probably less known to the Sam. are altered into 
the more common ones.'' 

•* For ~in2"*, " He will elect " (the spot), the Sam. 

ilwaj's puts "in^, " Ue lias elected " (namely, Geri- 
Slm). See below. 

6 D^nyii? 2^ must be a misprint. 

c Thus D^ is found in the Samar. for D~ of the 

KMOiwtJo T. ; m for H'"; V for T; DfT'bW 

for anbS; m"nSX2 for n'iSa etc.: some- 
times a T is put even where the Heb. T. has, in ac- 
cordance with the grammatical rules, only a short 

vowel or a sheva : V3Din is found for "I^DCH , 

: T ' 

nvais for nv2S. 


<i IDTO, UP, bsn, become I^HSS, nDH, 


(c.) The same propensity for completing appar- 
mtly incomplete forms is ncticealile in the flexion 
of the verlis. I lie apocopated or short future is 
altered into the regular future." 

( d. ) On the other hand the paragogical letters 1 

and '' at the end of nouns, are almost universally 
»truck 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. <^ 

((=. ) 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 

" ^2^15 becomes T'Sm ; HX^'^I is emendated 
•nto ma'^T i S"}"; (verb n"b) into nS"!** i the 
final \~ of the 3d pars. fern. plur. fut. into r'Z'. 

t> ''S^lti; is shortened into ]Dlki7, iriTf into 

c Masculine are made the words DH V (Gen. xlix. 
20), "l37Ji? (Deut. XV. 7, ^tc), nSHJi (Gen. xxxii. 
9) ; feminine the words ^"1S (Gen. xiii. 6), "7^T 
(Deut. xxviii. 25), IC23 (Gen. xlvi. 25, etc.); where- 
ever the word "12?3 occurs in the sense of " girl,"' a 
n is added at the end (Gen. xxiv. 14, etc.). 

d SIU^I "7lbn imti^'^l, " the waters returned 
continually^'''' is transformed into "13^n ID'lti^'^T 
"13Ii7V"they returned, they went and they re- 
turned " (Gen. viii. 3). Where the infin. is used as 
an adverb, e. g. prnH (Gen. xxi. 16), "far off," it 
is altered into Hp^mn, '' she went far away," 
which renders the passage almost unintelligible. 

' C*I~137 for C~T'V (Gen. iii. 10, 11) ; l\l> for 
"rbl (xi. 30) ; D"'"nD!i for the collective "115!? 
(XV. 10) ; m^H, " female servants," for mri-SDS 

(XX. 17) ; ^:2^^ "^^ nm2a st^i for the ad- 

verbial 31t2 (xlix. 15) ; '^rT'^a for D'^rT^"12 
(Ex. xxvi. 26, making it depend from ''^*2?) ; DtS^D, 
in the unusual sense of " from it " (comp. 1 K. xvii. 
13;, is altered into HS^P (Lev. ii. 2); n^H 

Is wrongly put for *',"' (3d p. s. m. of "^TI = — &•) ; 

"iy, the obsolete form, is replaced by the more recent 
"1*'3? (Num. xxi. 15) ; the unusual fern, termination 
■'" (comp. 7tD"'3S) 7"^n"^3S, is elongated into 
n^~i lim? is the emendq^ion for VW (Deut 
sxii. 1) ; "^~in for "^'^"irT (Deut. xxxiii. 15), etc. 

/ nt27WT I27"^W, " man and woman," used by 
Glen. vii. 2 of animals, is changed into n!3p31 "^3^, 
' male and female; " VS^ti? (Gen. xxiv. 60), " his 
Mters," bevwmes VH'^'lS, " his enemies ; " for Htt 


common ones have lieen substituted in a groai 
number of places « 

2. The secvnd class of variants consists nf glosset 
and interpretations received into the text: glosses, 
moreover, in vihich the Sam. not unfiequently 
coincides with the LXX., and which are in many 
cases evidently derived by both from some ancient 

3. The Ihird class exhibits conjectural emenda 
tions — sometimes far from happy — of real or im 
aginary difficulties in the Masoretic Text. 3 

4. The fourth class exhibits readings in which 
apparent deficiencies have been corrected or sup- 

(indefin.) is substituted HDISD i S"l^, "he will 
see, choose," is amplified by a \). " for himself; " 
")2n "iSn is transformed into "1:;'' ~DS "IIIH 
(Lev. xvii. 10) ; D2?b2 bS 'nbs "If^";! (Num. 
xxiii. 4), " And God met Bileam," becomes with the 
Sam. 'n nS 'bW "JSbn S^^a^l, "and an 
Angel of the Lord found Bileam ; " rTtf'SrT 73? 
(Gen. XX. 3), " for the woman," is amplified into 
nJi^Sn miH Vl?, " for the sake of the woman ; " 
for "^ ■■ 3371, from "T3D (obsol., comp. ^XJo), is put 
''"T337, "those that are before me," in contradis- 
tinction to " those who will come after me ; " *12?^1, 
" and she emptied " (her pitcher into the trough, Gen. 
xxiv. 20), has made room for T^TIjHI, " and she 
took down ; " TV^W ^mi^lD, " I will meet there " 
(A. v., Ex. xxix 43), is made Cli? \"ltt?~l'T3, " I 
shall be [searched] found there ; " Num. xxxi. 15, 
before the words HSpJ bs CH'^'Tin, "Have 
you spared the life of every female?" a HSv, 
"Why," is inserted (LXX.); for mn^ 'CW '^'2 
S"ipS (Deut. xxxii. 3), " If I call the name of Jeho- 
vah," the Sam. has Dti73, " In the name," etc. 

The elliptic use of Tv^, frequent both in He- 
brew and Arabic, being evidently unknown to the 

emeudator, he alters the ib^l^ 7^1W HSQ ^^bPT 
(Gen. xvii. 17), " shall a child be born unto him that 
is a hundred years old ? " into ^^ vIS, " shall I be- 
get ? " Gen. xxiv. 62, K13tt W2, " he came from 
going " (A. V. " from the way ") to the well of Lahai- 

roi, the Sam. alters into "l^^ttD K3, "in oi 
through the desert " (LXX., £id ttjs ipijixov)- In Gen. 
XXX. 34, ■["'"imS '^TV' lb in, "BehoW, maj 
it be according to thy word," the 1 / (Arab. J) is 
transformed into S7, "and if not — let it be like 

thy word." Gen. xli. 32, mbiin n'"lDt|7n bn, 
" And for that the dream was doubled," becom»» 

n n"^Dtt7 nb27\ "The dream rose a secono 
time," which is both un-Hebrew, and Jiametrically 
opposed to the sense and construction of the passage 
Better ia the emendation Gen xlix. 10, V2C 


p.ied from pariillel passages in the common text. 
Cien. xviii. 29, 30, for '• I shall not do it, « " I 
Bhall not deskroy," * is substituted from Gen. xviii. 

28, ai, 32. Gen. xxxvii. 4, VIIS, "his brethren," 

is replaced by V23, "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 l~in"", 

Jethro, occasionally spelt "T "^ in the Hebrew text, 
Moses" father-in law — a man who, according to 
the ilidrash (iSi/ri), had no less than stvtn names; 

Vti7in^ (Jehoshua), into which form it corrects 

the shorter 27Ii7^n (Hoshea) when it occurs in 
the Masoretic Codex. More frequent still are the 
additions of single words and short phrases in- 
serted from parallel passages where the Hebrew 
text appeared too concise : '^ — unnecessary, often 
excessively aljsurd interpolations. 

5. The Jijt/i class is an extension of the one im- 
mediately preceding, and comprises larger phrases, 
additions, and repetitions from parallel passages. 
Whenever anything is mentioned as having been 
done or said previously l)y Moses, or where a com- 
mand of God is related as being executed, the 
whole speech bearing upon it is repeated again at 
full length. These tedious and always superfluous 
repetitions are most frequent in Exodus, both in 
the record of the plagues and in the many interpo- 
lations from Deuteronomy. 

6. To the sixth class belong those "emendations" 

V^2"1, "from between his feet," into "from 
among his banners," V^IlT T^'S^. Ex. xv. 
18, all but five of the Sam. Codd. read obll^b 
Tll^l, " for ever and longer," instead of 1V^, the 
common form, "evermore." Ex. xxxiv. 7, ni^DT 
nfv^^ SV, " that will by no means clear the sin," 

becomes np3"' W n|7P1' "and the innocent to 
kiiii shall be innocent," against both the parallel pas- 
sages and the obvious sense. The somewhat difficult 
^231^ Svl. "and they did not cease " (A. V., Num. 
xi, 2.5), reappears as a still more obscure conjectural 
^2PS^ , which we would venture to translate, " they 
were not gathered in," in the sense of " killed " : in- 
stead of either the 1tt?33S, " congregated," of the 
Sam. Vers., or Castell's "continuerunt," orHoubiganfs 

and Dathe's " convenerant." Num. xxi. 28, the ^27 


" Ar " (Moab), is emendated into ^27, " as far as," 

a pertectly meaningless reading ; only that the ~)27 
" city," as we saw above, was a word unknown to the 
Sam. The somewhat uncommon words (Num. xi. 32), 
mi^lT nnb ini2JC'*1, "and they (the people) 
Hread them all abroad," are transposed into 
niSintt? Cnb 1tDntt?"^X "and they slaugh- 
ered for themselves a slaughter." Deut. xxviii. 37, 
he word nSti^V) " *° astonishment" (A. V.), very 
rarely used in this sense (Jei. six. 8, xxv. 9), becomes 
Qtr 7, " to a name," i. e. a bad name. Deut. xxxUi. 6. 


of passages and words of the Hebrew text which 
contain something objectionable in the eyes of th« 
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 hi the antediluvian times begets his first 
son after he has lived 150 years: but one hundred 
years are, where necessary, subti-acted before, and 
added after the birth of the first son. Thus Jared, 
according to the Hebrew Text, begat at 1G2 years, 
lived afterwards 800 years, and " all his years were 
9(52 years; " according to the Sam. he begot when 
only 62 years old, lived afterwards 785 3ears, " 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. (/. Arphaxad, who in the Common Text 
is 35 years old when he l)egets Shelah, and live<l 
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 SEi-ruAGi>;T.]) 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 \cmd their Jntlitrs who dwelt In the land of 
Canaan and in the land of Egypt — eV •y?7 Kl-yh-Krw 
KoX eV 7^ Karaay] was four hundred and thirty 
years:" an interpolation of very late date indeed. 

"1DD!2 Vna "^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 

~12D^ '^'f^^.'? TI"'"), " May there be /rom AfVn a 
multitude," thereby trying perhaps to encounter also 
the apparent difficulty of the word HCDQ, standing 
for " a great number." Anything more absurd than 
the inSQ in this place could hardly be imagined. 
A few verses further on, the uncommon use of ?Q 

in the phrase ^^l^^lp^ ]^ (Deut. xxxiii. 11), as 
" lest," " not," caused the no less unfortunate altera- 
tion •12^''~^ "^^j so that the latter parf of the pas- 
sage, " smite' through the loins of them that rise 
against him, and of them that hate him, '.hat they rise 
not again," becomes " who will raise them?" — barren 
aUke of meaning and of poetry. For the unusual aud 

poetical t^SII'^ (Deut. xxxiii. 25 ; A. V. " thy 

strength "), "7^2"1 is suggested ; a word about the 
significance of which the commentators are at a 
greater loss even than about that of the original. 

" ntt727W sb. * n^ntt7S sb. 

c Thus in Gen_ i. 15, the words 7i7 "T"Sn7 
\^"1Sn, " to give light upon the earth," are inserted 
from ver. 17; Gen. xi. 8, the word 7"^!!^^, "and a 
tower," is added from ver. 4 ; Gen. xxiv. 22, /3? 

n^S, " on her face " (nose), is added from ver. 47, sc 
that the former verse reads "And the man took 
(np"*! for C£I7"'1) a golden ring "upon her face.""' 

Again, in Gen. ii. 2, "And God [? had] finished I 
I. ''3"'1, ? pluperf. ) on the seventh day," ^xj^^C'n 
is altered into "^tfttTI, "the sixth,"' 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," 

C"'"nr, "flocks," is replaced by D"'17"n, "shep- 
herds," since the flocks could not roil 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. sxxvii. [not xxxvi.] 30 : "And when they arose 
in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses." 
The surpassing reverence of the Samaritan is 
shown in passages like Ex. xxiv. 10, " and they 
beheld God," '-< which is transmuted into "and 
they held by, clung to, God " f" — a reading cer- 
tainly less in harmony with the following — "and 
they ate and drank." ^ 

7. The seventh class comprises what we might 


briefly call Saniaritanisms, i. e. certain Hebren 
forms translated into the idiomatic Samaritan ^ 
and here the Sam. Codices vary considerably 
among themselves, — as far as the very impel feet 
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 eiglith and last class contains alterations 
made in fa\or or on behalf of Samaritan theology, 
hermeneutics and domestic worship. Thus the 
word Eiulnm, four times construed with the plura. 
verb in the Hebrew Pentateuch, is in the S:im- 
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 aU the "IPIS^, " God will 
choose a spot," into "IHS, " He has chosen," 
namely, Gerizim, and the well known substitution 
of Gerizim for Ebal in Deut. xx\ii. 4: "It shall 
be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set 

c The gutturals and jl/ier(-letters are frequently 
changed: — t2"1"in becomes I3~nS (Gen. viii. 4); 
""S2 is altered into ''^JH (xxiii. 18); "ilZiXD into 
172ti7 (xxvii. 19); ''bnT stands for"»bnT (Deut. xxxii. 
21) ; the n is changed into H in words like 3r!3 
CTT22, which become DFID, Q*'nD3 ; FI is altered 
into r — "l^n becomes "17227. The "^ is frequently 
doubled (? as a mater lectionis) : 2^t2 "^H is substi- 
tuted for T'^'^n ; NI'^'^S for Sn-'W ; '^'^D for ^r. 
Many woras are joined together: — ~TT1"1Q stands 

for -n-n -in (ex. xxx. 23); ]S3nr) for "|s )n^ 

(Gen. xli. 45) ; Dn"^-)2 in is always C^fn^in. 
The pronouns r';S and "Jjl^?, 2d p. fem. sing, and 
plur., are changed into "^nS, ^^HM (the obso- 
lete Heb. forms) respectively ; the sufif. tJ into "^S ; 
'1~ into "T"^ ; the termination of the 2d p. b. fem. 
praet. ri~, becomes ^n, like the first p. ; the verbal 
form Aphel is used for the Hiphil; "^iTlSTS for 
^ni!DTn ; the medial letter of the verb 1 27 is 
sometimes retained as S or ''^ instead of being dropped 
iig in the Heb. Again, verbs of the form 77 V have 
'he "^ frequently at the end of the infin. fut. and part., 

Instiiad of the H, Nouns of the schema vJ^p 


ivZlS, etc.) are often spelt V^I^p, into which the 
^ -. T ' "'t' 

form V^T^n is likewise occasionally transformed. 
.. It 

Df distinctly Samaritan words may be mentioned : 
"fn (Gen. xxxiv. 31) = "f^S, "f^H (Chald ) " like ; " 

a\"in, for Heb. cmn, "seat;" nmbs, 

'm though it budded," becomes riHICSS = Targ. 

nrrCS I'D; WDH, "wise," reads 121311; 

IV, "spoil," >iv; n^a^ "days," nnv. 

<* rmrivD ti7"'S, "man of war," an expression 

used of God (Ex. xv. 3), becomes 72 1133, "hero of 
war," the former apparently of irreverent import to 
the Samaritan ear ; for ii ?1S 7Ji727'' (Deut. xxix. 
19. A. V. 20), lit. "And the wrath (nose) of the Lord 
shall smoke," il r|S "^rT*, " the wrath of the Lord 

will be kindled," is substituted ; "^bllllti nU 
(Deut. xxxii. 18), " the rock (God) which begat thee," 
is changed into *77 /Tm "^^-'5 "the rock which 

gloriiies thee ; " Gen. xix. 12, D*'ti73Sn, " the men," 
used of " the angels," has been replaced by 
Q''3S7?2n, "the angels." Extreme reverenc* 
for the patriarchs changed 1"11S, "Cursed bt 

their (Simeon and Levi's) anger," into 1"'1S, 
" brilliant is their anger " (Gen. xlix. 7). A flagrant 
falsification is the alteration, in an opposite sense, 

which they ventured in the passage TDli/'^ il T^T' 

nti;27, "The beloved of God [Benjamin, the 
founder of the Judajo-Davidian empire, hateful to 
the Samaritans] shall dwell securely," transformed 
by them into the almost senseless il 1"^ 1^ 
nimb ISti^"^, " The hand, the hand of God will 

rest [if Hlph. : 'J2ti'''^, i will cause to rest '] sec-urely '' 
(Deut. xxxiii. 12). Reverence for the Law and thf 
Sacred Records gives rise to more emendations : — 
T'^.''^^^ (Deut. XXV. 12, A. V. 11), "by his secrets." 
becomes '11li723, "by his flesh;" n^b^ti?"*, 
" coibit cum ea ; " (Deut. xxviii. 30), TM2iV 22^7"*, 

" concumbet cum ea ; " ]'lD''7ti7n 2/27, " to the 
dog shall ye throw it" (Ex. xxii. 30) (A. V. 31) 
7217.1 ~j7Lt7n, "ye shall indeed throw 
[away] " 


up these stones which I command joii this day on 
Aloiint Ebal (Sam. Gerizim], and there shalt thou 
build an altar unto tlie Lord thy (iod," etc. This 
passage gains a certain interest from Whiston and 
Kennicott havinn; charged the Jens with corrupt- 
ing it from Gerizim into Ebal. This supposition, 
however, was met by Rutherford, Parry, T^chsen, 
I^b.ntein, Verschuir, and others, and we need only 
add that it is completely given up by modern l!ib- 
lical scholars, althougli it cannot be denied that 
there is some prii/id facie ground for a doubt 
upon the subject. 'I'O this class also belong niore 
especially interpolations of really existing pas- 
sages, dragged out of their context for a special 
f urpose. In Exodus as well as in Deuteronomy 
the Sam. has. immediately after the Ten Com- 
mandments, the following insertions from Deut. 
sxvii. 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 
mminlaln ' on the other side Jordan by the way 
where the sun goeth down ... in the champaign 
over against Gilgal, beside the plains of IMoreh, 
' oi'ej' afjninst Rliecliem : ' " — this last superfluous 
addition, which is also found in Deut. xi. 30 of the 
Sam. Pent., being ridiculed in the Talmud, as we 
have seen above. 

From the immense number of these worse than 
(vorthless variants Gesenius has singled out four, 
h'hich he thinks preferable on the whole to those 
of the Masoretic Text. We will confine ourselves 
to mentioning them, and refer the reader to the 
recent commentaries upon them: he will find that 
they too have since been, all but unanimously, 
rejected." (1.) After the words, "And Cain spoke 

(~)!3S"'1) to his brother Abel" (Gen. iv. 8), the 
Sam. adds, " let us go into the field," ^ in ignorance 

of the absolute use of "^ttW, " to say, speak " 
(comp. Ex. xix. 25; 2 Chr. ii. 10 (A. V. U)), and 

the absol. l^"^"! (Gen. ix. 22). (2.) For "IHS 

(Gen. xxii. 13) the Sam. reads ^^S, i. e. instead 
of "behind him a ram," "■one ram." (3.) For 

D"12 "TIDn (Gen. xlix. 14), " an ass of bone," 
i. e. a strong ass, the Sam. has n^~13 m^n 
(Targ. D'na, Syr. P^-^- And (4.) for pT^I 
(Gen. xiv. 14), " he led forth his trained ser- 
vants," the Sam. reads pT'l, "he numbered." 
We must briefly state, in concluding this por- 

o Keil, in the latest edition of hi.s Introd., p. 590, 
note 7, says, " Kven the few variants, which Gesenius 
tries to prove geo tine, fall to the ground on closer 

c E. g. y\i:n for n'lp'^ (Es. xii. 48) ; sr:"' 
ntt7n (Ex. XXXV. 10). 

d E. g. "nDT for -IIDT (Ex. xiii. 13) ; 1!:D3"I 

for D12") (Num. XT. 35). 

e E. g. V]1T^^ for Plim (Gen. viii. 22) ; yiFI 

for yi37 (Gen. xxxvi. 28); J^St^n for Pirm^H 
[!<•▼. xi. 16), &c. 


tion of the subject, that we did not choose this 
classification of Gesenius because it appeared to us 
to 1)6 either systematic (Gesenius says himself: 
" Ceterum f;icile perspicitur complures in his esse 
lectiones quarum singulas alius ad aliud genus 
referre forsitan malit .... in una vel altera 
lectione ad aliam classem referenda baud ditficUes 
erimus . . . . ") or exhaustive, or even be- 
cause the illustrations themselves are unassailalile 
in point of the reason he assigns for them: but 
liecause, deficient as it is, it has at once and for- 
ever silenced the utterly unfounded though time- 
hallowed claims of the Samaritan Pen-tateuch. It 
was only necessary, as we said before, to collect a 
great lumiber 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 3ears of the. contest by a single one of the 
combatants is certainly rather strange: albeit not 
the only instance cf the kind. 

Im])ortaiit additions to this list have, as we 
hinted before, lieen made liy Frankel, such as the 
Samaritans' preference of the imperat. fur the 3d 
pers. ; <•' ignorance of the uSe of the abl. absol. ; ^ 
Galileanisms, — to which also belongs the permu- 
tation of the letters Alievi^ (comp. Kvub. p. 53, 

~)an, "laS, "^lyS), m the Samaritan Cod. ; the 

occasional softening down of the D into 3,/ of 3 

into 3 ^ into T, etc., and chiefly the presence 
of words and phrases in the Sam. which are not 
interpolated from parallel passages, but are entirely 
wanting in our text. 6' Frankel derives from these 
passages chiefly the conclusion that the Sara. 
Pent, was, partly at least, emendated from the 
LXX., Onkelos, and other very late sources. (See 

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. Q^^-ia in nbi?nb n'^'^iD-Li;! nisDin 

[Additions and alterations in the Samaritan Pen- 
tateuch in favor of Jlount Gerizim.] 

2. msbnb mCDin. [Additions for the 
purpose of completion.] 

3. ^1S3. [Commentary, glosses.] 

4. c^3\^nm D^^bijan nibn. [Change 

of verbs and moods.] 

/ tZ^nrr^l for tC!:n''"1 (Gen. xxxi. 35) ; rxDi^i 
for n2ti73 (Ex. XV. 10). 

g Gen. xxiii. 2, after 57^~lSn n'^^lpH the 


words pttl? /S are added ; xxvii. 27, after mil^rT 
the word S7tt is found (LXX.); xliii. 28, the phrase 
C'^nbsb Sinn tC^Sn -f1~Q is inserted after 
the Ethnach; xlvii. 21,C'*13i;'b T"21?n, and 

Ex. xxxii 32, S^7 nn StSn Strri CS is read. 
An exceedingly difficult and un-Hebrew passage bi 
found in Ex. xxiii. 19, reading jlST X^W2 "'D 

spy*^ "'nbsb sin n-in^i nna? nnT3. 


B. maiCn Pllbn. [change of nouns.] 

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

7. nVmWn nnian. [Permutation of 

8. D'^'^133. [Pronouns.] 

9. T12. [Gender.] 

10. mDD"l3n nrniS. [Letters added.] 

11. Drr^n nTmW. [Addition of preposl- 
ticns, conjunctions, articles, etc.] 

12. "TT'DI V'^^P- [Junction of separated, 
and separation of joined words.] 

13. 07*13? mii'^. [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 Afje and 
Oriffin 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 lieen 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 nullani 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 


opinions, and the chief reasons and arguments al- 
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 .). Morinus, 
Walton, Cappellus, Kennicott, JMichaelis, Eichhorn, 
Bauer, Jahn, Bertholdt, Steudel, Mazade, Stuart, 
Davidson, and others. Their reasons for it may be 
thus briefly summed up: — 

(".) It seems improbable that the S.imaritans 
should have accepted their code at the hands of the 
.lews after the exile, as supposed by soiue critics, 
since there existed an intense hatred between ths 
two nationalities. 

(b.) The Samaritan Canon has only the Penta- 
teuch in connnon with the Hebrew Canon : had 
that Iiook been received at a period when the Ha- 
giographa and the Prophets were in the Jrws'' 
hands, it would be surprising if they had not ilao 
received those. 

(c.) The Sam. letters, avowedly the more an- 
cient, are found in the Sam. Cod. : therefore it wa* 
written before the alteration of the character into 
the square Helirew — 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 ( Cnrine 
Shumrvn, p. 106, &c.). by the adoption of which 
many readings in the Heb. Codex, now almost un- 
intelligiV)le, appear perfectly clear. He assumes 
tiiat 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 Sam. 
Pent, has those difficult readings in connnon 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 T and 1, "^ and \ 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- 

(<i.) There existed no reliijiovs animosity what- 
soever between Judah and Israel when they sep- 
arated. The ten tribes could not therefore have 

a E. g. Is. xi. 15, □"T^ instead of D!?^?^ 
(adopted by Gesenius in Tkes. p. 1017 a, without a 
mention of its source, wliich he, however, distinctly 

avowed to Rosenmuller — comp. W D, P- 107, not« 
K) ; Jer. iii. 8, S"1W*1 instead of W~im ; 1 Sam. 

5xiv. 11, Dnm for Dnwi ; Ezr. Ti. i, nir\ 
k.i Sin ; Kz. xxii. 20, \'-in2m for \nnDm ; 

Jndg XV. 20, D*''nti)37 — Samson's reign during the 
time of the Pliilistines being given as twenty year* 

instead of forty (comp. Jer. Sola, 1), accounted foi 
by the J2 (numerical letter for forty) in the original 

being mistaken for 3 (twenty). Again, 2 Chr. xxii, 
2, forty is put instead of tiventy (comp. 2 K. ^iii. 26) ; 
2 K. xxii. 4, DH^I for '^^\'^^ ; Ez. iii. 12, -[Tia 
for DT^3, etc.; all these letters — ^ and »^ 

P( and xV, J and ^J, ^ and hT — resembUag 
each otheL- very closely. 


bequeathed such an animosity to those who suc- 
.•.eeded them, atid who, we may add, prol)ably cared 
iis little originally for the disputes Ijetweeii Judah 
and Israel, as colonists from far off countries, be- 
longing to utterly different races, are likely to care 
for the quarrels of the aborigines who formerly in- 
habited the country. On the contrary, the contest 
between tht 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 
did 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 tr>ok their stand upon 
this very Law — altered according to their curum- 
Btances; and proved from it that they and they 
alone were the Jews kut' i^oxh"- 

{b.) Their not possessing any other book of the 
Hebrew Canon is not to be accounted for by the 
circumstance that there was no other book in exist- 
ence at the time of the schism, because many 
psalms of Uavid, writings of Solomon, etc., must 
have been circulating among the people. But 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 sufficiently account for 
their rejecting the other books, in all of which, save 
Joshua, Judges, and Jol), either Jerusalem, as the 
centre of worship, or David and his House, are 
extolled. If, however, Loewe has really found with 
them, as he reports iti the Alli/em. Zntun<j d. 
Jwlenth. 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 not in- 
troduced by Ezra after the return from the Exile, 
but came into use at a much later period. The 
Samaritans might therefore have received the Pen- 
tateuch at the hands of the returned exiles, who, 
nccording to the Talmud, nj'terwards changed their 
writing, and in the Pentateuch only, so as to dis- 
tinguish it from the Samaritan. " Originally," 
Bays Mar Sutra {Sanhedr. 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 As/iwi/h writing and 
Aramaic language. Israel then selected the Ash- 
urith writing and the Holy language, and left to 
the Hediotes {'\hiuirai) 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- 
aary 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 (conip. Josephus, Ant. xi. 8, §§ 2, 4) 
fit the time of the foundation of the Samaritan 
Sanctuary on INIount Gerizim (Ant. van Dale, R. 
Simon, Prideaux, Fulda, Hasse, De Wette, 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 CJode, against the ]\Iasoretic Text. 

(3.) Other, but very isolated notions, are thosi 
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 tiie Pentateuch with him. Further, tnat 
the Samaritan Pentateuch was the production of 

an impostor, Dositheus (^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, tliat it is a very late and faulty recension, 
with additions and corruptions of the Masorctic 
Text (Gth 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 nientione/i 
those to vvhich 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 Sam. 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 : " And he read in the Book 
of the Law of God — this is Mikra, the Pentateuch ; 

Il^mS^, explanatory, this is Targum." [Vek- 
siONS ( Taiigum).] 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. 

I'he chief opinions with respect to the agreement 
of the numerous and as 3et 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, Hassencamp, 
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 wliich afterwards obtained public 
authority in Palestine; that however very many 
willful corruptions and interpolations have crept 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 tht quotations in the N. T. from the LXX., 
where tney coincide with the Sam. against tli€ 
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 [Ivennicott] : — 


No. 1. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., fol., No. 3127. 
Perfect, except tbe first twenty and last nine verses. 

No. 2. Oxford (Ussher) liodl., 4to, No. 3128, 
ritli 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. 
G24. Defective in parts of Deut. 

No. 5. Oxford (Marsh) Bodl., 12mo, No. 15. 
Wanting some \erses in the beginning; 21 chapters 

No. 6. Oxford (Pocoek) 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 (Peirese) 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 (Peirese) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 2. 
Ancient MS., wanting first 17 chapters of Gen.; 
and all Dent, from the 7th ch. Houbigant, how- 
ever, quotes from Gen. x. 11 of this Codex, a rather 
puzzliiicj circiunstance. 

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. Genev.). Of little 
value. ' 

No. 13. Pome (Peir. and Barber.) Vatican, No. 
106. Hel)r. 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 lie 
very ancient not collated. 

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

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

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

I'rinted 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 
he X(i/ilu!t MSS., has been edited, with portions 
of the corresponding Masoretic text, and a Russian 
Translation and Introduction, by Levysohn, Jeru- 
salem, 18G0.« 

II. Versions. 
1. Samnvitan. — The origin, author, and age of 
the Samaritan Version of the Live Books of Moses, 
has hitherto — so Eichhorn quaintly obsen-es — 
" always been a golden apple to the investigators, 
and will very probably remain so, until people leave 
off venturing decisive judgments upon historical 
'ubjects 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; Winerj, theii 
high-j)riest Nathaniel, who died about 20 b. c, ;g 
its author. Gesenius puts its date a few years afte? 
Christ. Juynboll thinks that it had long been in 
use in the second post Christian century. Fraidiel 
places it in the post-Mohammedan time. Other in- 
vestigators date it I'rom the time of Ffcrhaddon's 
priest (Schwarz), or either shortly before or after 
the foundation of the temple on Jlount 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 jwpulas 
Samaritan idiom, a mixture of Hebrew, Aramaic, 
and Svriac. 

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 oi 

Deut. iii. 9: " The Zidonians call Hermon ^'^Itl? 

(Shirion), and the Amorites call it'T'Sti? (Shenir)." 

The translator deriving 'J"'")!^ from Iti? "prince, 

master," renders it 7^^ "masters;" and finding 
the letters reversed in the appellation of the Amor- 
ites as T^SIi?, reverses also the sense in his ver- 
sion, and translates it by "slaves" ^TTS^ti^H! 
In other cases, where no Samaritan equivalent 
could be found for a Hebrew word, the translator, 
instead of paraphrasing it, simply transposes ita 
letters, so as to make it kiak Samaritan. Occa- 
sionally he is misled by the orthography of tho 

original: J S12S ]2 CS, "If so, where . . .?" 

he renders nTD~:S p C^*, "If so, I shall be 

wrath:" mistaking SI^S for 1CS, from ^IM 
"anger." On the whole it maybe 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 imder 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 evenint;; we bow to the ground and 
worship God." Accordingly, we find the translator 
rendering the passage, " And Isaac went to ' walk ' 

(niii? ,) in the field," by — "and Isaac went to 
pray (HS^UHv) in the field." "And Abraham 

rose in the morning ("iplISS)," is rendered ""V^n, 
" in the prayer," etc. Anthropomorpbisms are 
avoided. "The image (n31it2i"l) of God" is 

a The original intention of the Russian Govc;rnnient 
lo puhlisli the whole Codex in the ,«;ime manner seems 
:o have been given up for the present. We can only 
hope that, if the work is ever taken up again, it will 
Kll into >nore c mipetent hands. Mr Levysohn's In- 

rendered TMl'^'S'^, "the 
" The mouth of Jehovah, 

glory." mn'' 

' is transformed 


mn^ ~)7^'^'t2, " the word of Jehovah." Foi 

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 th« 
fact that his new discoveries have been disposed or 
some hundred and fifty years since. 


Zl'^nbW, " God," n""DSba, » Augel," is fre- 
quently found, etc. A great difficulty is offered by 
the proper names which this version often substi- 

Onkelos ia Polyglott. Num 

snnH IS' nan ^^r^b na\m bsn^?^ "^sa 
C2ip -iTT^b snnn 113 -nab •l£'"^-id^ ns 
'^n -iT^ p'^n37i mn -i^Dna : mn"* 
\'-itt;'' sb p\-ii7 -Mini bm mn -iiam 
]"^i2327T ^rw^ Hb r23p m-ina bsi 
.biD'^^ sb ]'>::7''a"'T ]"'n'^i2"i 

But no safe conclusion as to the respective rela- 
tion of the two versions can be drawn from this. 

Tliis Version has likewise, in passing through 
the hands of copyists and commentators, suffered 
many interpolations and corruptions. The first 
copy of it was brouglit to Europe by De la Valle, 
together with the Sam. Text, in 161G. -Joh. Ne- 
drinus first published it together with a faulty Latin 
translation in the Paris Polyglott, whence it was, 
with a few emendations, reprinted in AValton, with 
some notes by C'astellus. Single portions of it 
appeared in Halle, ed. by Cellarius. 1705, and by 
Uhlemann, Leipz., 18.37. Compare Gesenius, De 
Ptni. Sam. Oi ujine, etc., and Winer's monograph, 
De Versionis Pent. Sam. Indole, etc., Leipzig, 

2. Th lafxap^iTiKSu. The hatred between the 
Samaritans and the .Jews is supjjosed to have caused 
the Ibrmer to prepare a Greek translation of their 
Pent, in opposition to the LXX. of the .lews. In 
this way at least the existence of certain fragments 
af a Greek Version of the Sam. Pent., presersed in 
!ome 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 comjilete ideutity, 
for instance — 

vi. 1, 2. Sam. Vers, in Barberini Tngloli, 

□2? bba : -io>;2b nt27ia cs' mn'» h\r:.^ 
nns IS -123 ]inb -itt\'-n bs-ia;'- *':3 
niT^nnb -in: -ns -nab it'-id'^ "rr 
-lam "^an "T^T"^ vin-^^ -lan "ja : mn^b 
n-TiiT' -iia bsT sniT''' sb i^n-n "^nm 
^>j:7>2'^«i y-2^-^-\ ]>3327i r^rw^ sb I'^n^i? 

.b3^^ sb 

for. These fragments are supposed to be alluded to 
by the Greek Fathers under the name 2a/xapei- 
tik6v. It is doubtful, however, whether it ever ex- 
isted (as Gesenius, Winer, .luynboll, suppose) ia 
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. Li 1070 an ^-Ij-r/iic 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 tlie latter 
by euphemisms, besides occasionally making some 
slight alterations, more especially in proper nouns. 
It is extant in several MS. copies in European 
libraries, and is now in course of being edited by 
Kueiien, 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 tbe 

a A list of the more remarkable of these, in the 
»se of geographical names, is subjoined : — 

Oen. Till. 4, for Ararat, Sarendib, I1^^3'^D. 

X. 10, II Shinar, Tsofah, PFDI^ (? Zobah). 

11, « Asshur, Astuu, ^12327. 

— li Rehoboth, Satcan, 'JDaD (? Sit- 


— 11 Calah, Laksah, PTDpA 

12, « Resen, Asfah, (15017. 
30, » Mesha, Mesbal, biQDa. 

ri. 9, <( Babel, Lilak, pb"'b. 

xiii. 3, " Ai, Cefrah, mDS (? Cephirah, 

Josh. ix. 17). 
ziv. 5, " Ashtevoth Karnaim,AfinithKarQiah, 

u Ham, Lishah, 71127'^/. 
- 6, » EI Paran, Pelishah, etc., DnD 

nibsb n*^bD. 

— 14, " Dan, Banias, DS^33. 

— 16, « Ilobah, Fogah, TOID. 

— 17, " Shaveh, Mifueh, HDCa. 

Gen. XV. 18, for Euphrates, Shalmah, nSobli?. 

— 20, 11 Rephaim, Cbasah, HSDH. 
XX. 1, " Gerar, Askelun, "JlvpDl?. 

xxvi. 2, " Mitsraim, Nefik, p^23 (? Exoius). 

xxxvi.8,9,&c.u Seir, Gablah, nb^J (Jebal). 

37, « Rehoboth, Fathi, \-l5. 

Num. xxi. 33, " Bashan, Bathnin, ^'^3n2(Batan8ea) 

xxxiv. 10, u Shepbam, "Abamiab, n^a217 (Apa. 
11, ", 'Afamiah, rT'ttd?. 
Deut. ii. 9, u Ar (-|17), Arshah, ntZ7-|S. 

iii. 4, " Argob, Rigobaah, nS3*l3''-| (Pa- 

— 17, i' Chiuuereth, Genesar, "1D3!l. 

iv.4S, " Sion, TCir Telga, S^bi"! "1112 (Je- 

bel et Telj). 

h E. g. Ex. xiii. 12, CH-l "II^D b^ (Sam. Ver. 

Dm "^mnD ba) remains ^j^U ijS: xxi. 3 

nW^ bya (Sam. Ver nnS ^nOr-) U girei 

twxt Jju. 


Saiaar. Version.'-' Principally noticeable is its 
excessive dread of assigning to God anything 
like human attributes, physical or mental. For 

D'TlbS mrf^, " God," we find (as in Saadiah 

sometimes) xJJI ^%^, "the Angel of God;" 

for " the eyes of God " we have (Ueut. xi. 12) 

jJJt &ia.a>!^Lo, "the Beholding of God." 

For "Bread of God," j»\J', "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 e\en cor- 
rect; and its use must likewise be confined to the 
critical study of the Sam. I'ext. 

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 Syrioc, in 
contradistinction to the Arabic, and wliich is 
often confounded with it in tlie MSS. On both 
Kecensions see Eichhorn, Gesenius, JuynboU, etc. 

HI. Samakitan Litekatuke. 

It may perhaps not be superfluous to add here 
a concise account of the Samaritan literature in 
general, since to a certain degree it bears upon our 

1. Chronicon SdmariUinum. — Of the Penta- 
teuch and its Versions we have spoken. AVe have 
also mentioned that the Samaritans have no other 
book of our Keceived 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," wflj ^ {C/iron. Sam.); Eli; Solomon, " Shi- 

loh " (Gen. xlix. 10), " *'. e. the man wlio shall 
tjtoil the Law and whom many nations will follow 
because of tlieir 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 Buvk of Josliwi, wliich 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 C/(J'07ii- 

con Samaritanum (i^y-> ^^vJ ,*-wJu2.J >-^*w\ 

sent to Scaliger by the Samaritans of Cairo in 1584. 
It was edited by JuynboU (Leyden, 1848), and his 
acute investigations have shown that it was redacted 
into its present form about a. d. 1300, out of four 
special docuujents, three of which were Arabic and 
one Hebrew (/. e. Samaritan). The Leyden MS. 
m 2 pts., which Gesenius, De Sam. Tlieol. p. 8, n. 
18, thinks unique, is dated A. H. 764-91!! (A. D: 
1362-1513); — the Cod. in the Brit. Museuni, 

a Thus m**!?, Gen. xlix. 11 (Sam. Ver. nmp, 
'his city "), the Arab, renders 5^£ • Gen. xli. 43, 
■J"13S (Sam. Ver. TI'lD = K^puf ), the Arab, trans- 


lately acquired, dates a. h. 908 (a. d. 1502). The 
chronicle embraces the time from Joshua to about 
A. D. 350, and was originally written in, or subse- 
quently translated into, Arabic. Alter eight chap, 
ters of introductory matter begins the early history 
of "Israel" under ^'■King Joshua," who, aniong 
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-pi'ieats, 
the last of whom was L'si ( ? = 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. 

^\e shall only adduce here a single specimeD 
out of the 45th cli. of the book, which treats of 
the suliject of the Pentateuch : — 

Nebuchadnezzar was king of Persia (Mossul), 
and conquered the whole world, also the kings of 
Syria. In tlie tliirteenth year of their subjuga- 
tion they rebelled, together with tlie 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 imnii- 
grants'died from eating of its fruits (Joseph. A7it. 
ix. 14, § 3). The chiefs of Israel («. 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 tliis 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 tlie "Mount of Blessing," 
Gerizim. The dispute was referred to the king, and 
while the Samaritans pro\ed their case from the 
books of Bloses, the Jews grounded their preference 
for Jerusalem on the post-Mosaic books. The supe- 
rior force of tlie Samaritan argument was fully recog- 
nized liy the king. But as each side — by the mouth 
of their spokesmen, Saiiballut and Zerubabel respec- 
tively, — charged the other with basing its claims 
on a forged document, the sacred books of each 
party were sulijected to tlie ordeal of fire. The 
Jewish Pecord was immediately consumed, while 
the Samaritan leaped three times from the lianies 
into the kings lap: the third time, however, a por- 
tion of the scroll, upon wliich the king had sj^at, 
was found to have been consumed. 'J"hirty-six 
Jews were immediately lieheaded, and the Samari- 
tans, to the numlier of 300,000 wept, and ill Israel 
worshipped henceforth upon Mount Gtri'zim — 
" and so we will ask our help from the jjrace of 
God, who has in his mercy granted all these things, 
and in Him we will confide." 

2. I'rom this work chiefly has been compiled an- 
other Chronicle, viritteii in the 14th century (1355) 

6 A word, it may be observt'l by the way 
taken by the Mohammedans h-om <he Babbiiiiok) 


i)y Abu'l Fatah.'' This comprises the history of 
the Jews and Samaritens from Adam to a. ii. 75'J 
and 798 (a. d. 1355 and 1397) respectively (tlie 
forty -two years must have been added by a later 
historiographer). It is of equally low historical 
value; \ts only remarkable feature being its adop- 
tion of certain Talmudical legends, which it took 
at second hand from Josippon ben Gorion. Accoi'd- 
ing to this chronicle, the deluge did not cover 
Gerizim, in the same manner as the Midrasli {Ber. 
Rah.) exempts the whole of Palestine from it. A 
specimen, likewise ou 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 Ahrou, Sumla, and Hudmaka, the Jews 
Eleazar only. The king assigned houses to them, 
and gave them each an adept of the Greek language, 
in order that he might assist them in their transla- 
tion. 'I'he Samaritans rendered only then' Penta- 
teuch into the language of the land, while Kleazar 
produced a translation of the whole Canon. The 
king, perceiving variations in the respective Penta- 
teuchs, asked the Samaritans the reason of it. 
Whereupon they replied that these differences chiefly 
turned upon two points. (1.) God had 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 DVv, "to the day 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 wliat was their 
opinion al'Out the .lewish 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 must have 
chimrjed the laws, and these were unchangeable." 
A Greek who stood near, observed that laws must 
be adapted to different times, and altered accord- 
ingly; whereupon the Samaritans proved that this 
was only the case with human, not with divine 
laws: moreover, the seventy Elders had left them 
the explicit command not to accept a word beside 
the Thora. The king now fully approved of their 
translation, and gave them rich presents. But to 
the Jews he strictly enjoined not even to approach 
Mount (ierizini. There can be no doubt that there 
is a certain historical fact, however contorted, at 
the bottom of this (eomp. the Talmudical and other 
accounts of the LXX.), but we cannot wow further 
pursue the subject. A lengthened extract from 
this chronicle — the original text with a German 
translation — is given by Schnurrer in Paulus' 
Neues Eepertorium, 1790, 117-159. 


3. Another "historical" work is the i_}Uu 

YAi^AA/J'f on the history and genealogy of tin 

patriarchs, from Adam to Moses, attributed to 
Moses himself; perhaps the same which Petermann 
saw at Ndblus, and which consisted of sixteen 
vellum leaves (svipposed, however, to contain the 
history of the world down to the end). An anony- 
mous recent commentary ou it, a. h, 1200, A. d. 
178i, is in the Brit. Mus. (No. lUO, Add.). 

4. Of other Samaritan works, chiefly in Arabic — 
their Samaritan and Hebrew literature having 
mostly been destroyed liy the Emperor Comnio- 
dus — may be briefly mentioned Commentaries upon 
the whole or parts of their Pentateuch, liy Zadaka b. 
Manga b. Zadaka;'^ further, by Maddib Eddin 
Jussuf b. Abi Said b. Khalef; by Ghazel Ibn Abu- 
i-Surur Al-Safawi Al-Gliazzi '' (A. ii. 1167-G8, a. u. 
1753-5-1, Brit. Mus.), &c. Theological works chiefly 
ill Arabic, mixed with Samaritanisms, by Abul 
Hassan of Tyre, On the rili(/iotis 3Ianners and 
Cusloins o/' Ihe Samaritans, and the Wurld to 
come ; by Mowaffek Eddin Zadaka el Israili, A 
Compendium of HAigion, on the Nature of the 
Dicine Bein(j, on Man, on ihe Worship of God; 
by Amin Eddin Alju'l Baracat, On the Ten Com- 
mandments ; by Abu'l Hassan Ibn El Markura 
Gonajem ben Abulfaraj' ibn Chatdr, 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 Hebrtiu La7iguJ(/e: by Abu Said, On 

reading ihe Hebrew Text 



» ^J^t ^J'^' ^AAJI ^ 

^yjMy^S ^iJtXJ (^*X)LA*^-'f (HoJl ; Imp. 

Library, Paris) Two copies in Berlin Library (Pe- 
"lermaim, Uoseu) recently acquii'ed. 

* This work has .<iuce been published, with the 
tie: "Abulfathi Anuales Samaritaui. tiuos .\r.ibice 

(fyiJI j.Ajly;). 

Tills grammar begins in the following character- 
istic manner: — 

" Thus said the Sheikh, rich in good works and 
knowledge, the model, the aljstemious, the well- 
guided Abu Said, to whom God be merciful and 

" I'raise lie unto God for his help, and I ask foi 
his guidance towards a clear exposition. I have 
resohed to lay down a few rules for the proper 
manner of reading the Holy Writ, on account of 
the difference which I found, with respect to it, 
among our co-religionists — whom may God make 
numerous and inspire to obedience unto Him ! — 
and in such a ni:\nner that I shall bring proofs for 
my assertions, from which the wise could in no 
way differ. But God knows best 1 

" Rule 1: With all their discrepanciefc about 
dogmas or religious views, yet all the confessors of 

the Hebrew religion agree in this, that the H of 
the first pers. (sing, perf.) is always pronounced 

with ICasra, and that a "^ follows it, provided it has 
no suffix. 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 ProU. ].^tiae vertit et Commentario illus 
travit Dp. Ed. Vilmar." Gotha, 18G5, 8vo. A. 

b Couipaiv the well-known Uictuni of Omar on tht 
Ak xandiiau Library (Gibbon, ch. 51). 

' Under the title . .,,£ , jl^cLaxJI l-JUiiL5 



(13th century, Bodl.) 





The treatise concludes, at the end of the 12th 
Canon or Kule : — 

" Often also the perfect is iised 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), 

•ra^i; nn "^b T1:2S1— < 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, howe^■er, we will treat viva voce. And 
blessed be His name forevermore.'' 

5. Their Litingical literature is more extensive, 
and not without a certain poetical value. It con- 
sists chietly of hymns (Defter, Durranj and prayers 
for Sabbath anil Feast-days, and of occasional 
prayers at nuptials, circumcisions, burials, and the 
like. We subjoin a few specimens from M.S!S. in 
the British Museum, transcribed into Hebrew char- 

The following is part of a Litany for the dead : — 

"i3i • nu:r: • ]3^3"iist • spp'^i • pn!:'^T 

Lord Jehovah, Elohiui, 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 Ls;uic, and 
.lacob, and our Lords Moses and Aaron, and Eleazar, 
and [thauiar, and Piuehas, and Joshua, and Caleb, 
and the Holy Angels, and the seventy Elders, and the 
holy mouutaiu of Gerizim, Beth El. If Thou accept- 

est [D'^tt^H] this prayer [S~ptt = reading], may 
there go forth from before Thy holy countenance a 
gift sent to protect the spirit of Thy servant, ,,^ J\., 


the son of N.], of the sous of 

[ ], daughter [ ] from the sons of [ ]. 

Lord Jehovah, in Thy mercy have pompassion on him 

(•I [°^] have compassion on her), and rest his (her) 

soul in the garden of Eden; and forgive him (,J 

[or] her), and all the congregation of Israel who flock 
to Mount Gerizim, Beth El. Amen. Through Moses 
the trusty. Amen, Amen, Amen. 

The next is part of a hymn (see Kirchheim's 
Carme Shomron, emendations on Gesenius, Carm. 
6am. iii.): — 

inW SbW nbS n'^b There is no God but one, 

ntt'^rp DTlbS The everlasting God, 

Db2?b IV n^Vpl Who liveth forever ; 

]"^bTI bS yV nbW God above all powers, 

Dv27 V ^3 ^DX21 And who thus remaineth 


^rnn3 nSI ~jbTI3 in Thy grear power shall 
we trust, 

]"172 in nST For Thou art our Lord ; 

n^liNl "ininbSH in Thy Godhead ; for 
Thou hast conducted 

nti?'^"! ^D nDb37 The world from begin- 



n*'D3 "jminn Thy power was hiddeu, 

"J'^Xinil "["iniDl And Thy glory and mercj 

rrnSDDI nriS^bi ]^b:i Revealed are both thi 
things that are ro 
vealed, and tbosi 
that are unrevealed 

"lD1 "ininbS 'jtablC'a Before the reign oi 
Thy Godhead, etc. 

IV. ^\'e shall only briefly touch here, in con- 
clusion, upon the strangely contradictor}- rabbinicaj 
laws framed lor the regulation 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 
Jew.s in the religious state of the Samaritajif». 
Thus we find the older Talmudical authorities dis- 
puting whether the Cuthim (Samaritans) are to 

be considered as " Eeal Converts" nCS "*~T*3, 
or only converts through fear — " Lion Converts" 

i"1V~1S ^"l"'^ — in allusion to the incident related 
hi 2 K. xvii. 25 {Baba K. 38; Kidush. 75, &c.) 

One Kabbi holds "'US Tll^, " A Samaritan is 
to be cotisidered as a heathen;" while I!. Simon 
b. Gamaliel — the same whose opinion on the Sam. 
Pent, we had occasion to quote before — jiro- 
nounces that they are " to be treated in every 
respect like Israelites" {Devi. Jer. ix. 2; Ktiub. 
11, (tc). It would appear that notwithstanding 
their rejection of all but the I'entateuch, they had 
adopted many traditional religious practices froir 
the .Jews ^ principally such as were derived direct 
from the books of Moses. It was acknowledged 
that they kept these oidinances with even greater 
rigor than those from whom Ihey adopted them. 
The utmost confidence was therefore placed in them 
for their ritually slaughtering animals,-even fowls 
{CIiiil. 4 a); their wells are pronounced to be 
conformed to all the conditions prescribed by the 
Mishnah {Toseph. Mikw. 6; comp. Mikw. 8, 
1). See, however, Abodah Zarah (Jer. v. 4). 
Their unleavened bread for the Passover is com- 
mended {Oil. 10; Clitil. 4); their cheese (Mas. 
Cu/li. 2); and even their whole food is allowed 
to the- Jews (Ab. Zar. Jcr. 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. Culli. ii.). They were 
admitted to the office of circumcising Jewish boys 
(J/".<!. Culli. i.) — against P. JeiiudaJi, who asserta 
that they circumcise " in the name of Mount 
(ierizim " {Abodah Zanih, 43). The cri[|iiual 
law makes no difference whatever between them and 
the Jews {Mas. Cutli. 2; Mnkk. 8); and a Sa- 
maritan who strictly adheres to his own special 
creed is honored with the title of a Cuthi-Chaber 
(Giliin, 10 b: Middnh, 33 b). By degrees, how- 
ever, inhibitions began to be laid upon the use 
of their wine, vinegar, bread {Mug. Cutli. 2 
Tosepli. 77, 5), &c. This intermediate stage of 
uncertain and inconsistent treatment, which must 
have lasted for nearly two centuries, is liest char- 
acterized by the small rabliinical treatise quoted 
above — M<issedt<:tli Cudiiin {2d cent, a i>.) — 


Irst edited by Kirchlieim (Hl^l^P 0X2 VJ.W 

bbU?*)")"*) Francf. 1851 — the beginning of which 
reads: "The ways (treatment) of the Cutliim (Sa- 
maritans), sometimes hke Goyim (heathens) some- 
times like Israel." No less striking is its conclu- 
sion : — 

" Aud why are the Cuthim not permitted to come 
into the midst of the Jews? Because they have 
mixed with the priests of the heights " (idolaters). 
R. Ismael says: "They were at first pious con- 
verts (p"T^ '^"T^3 = real Israelites), and why is 
the intercourse witli them prohibited ? Because of 
their illegally begotten children," and because they 

do not fulfill the duties of DQ'' (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 Jerusidem (namely, its superior 
claims), and believe in the Kesurrection."* 

We hear of their exclusion by li. Meir ( (]hul. 
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 {Jev. Abochth Zurah, 5, 
&c.). Partaking of their bread'' was considered a 
transgression, to be 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 Me<i. 28, 0. " May it never 
happen to nie that I behold a Cuthi." " Whoever 
receives a Samaritan hospitably in his house, de- 
serves that his children go into exile " (Synh. 
104, 1). In Matt. x. 5 Samaritans and (ientiles 
are already mentioned together; and in Luke xvii. 
18 the Samaritan is called " a stranger " (aAA.o- 
yeviis)- 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 charged 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. 

Authorities. — 1. Original texts. Pentateuch in 
the l^olyglotts of Paris, and Walton ; also (in Hebr. 
letters) by Blayney, 8vo, Ox. 1790. Sam. Version 
in the Polyglotts of Walton and Paris. Arab. 
Vers, of Abu Said, Libri Gen. Ex. el Lev. by 
Kuenen, Svo, Lugd. 1851-54; also Van Vloten, 
Specimen, etc., 4to, Lugd. 180.'3. Literce ad Scnl- 
tger, etc. (by De Sacy), and Kpistola ad Ludol/ih. 
(Bruns), in Eichhonrs Repertorium, xiii. Also, 
with Letters to De Sacy himself, in Notices et Kx- 
irnits des MSS. [vol. xii.] Par. 1831. Clironieon 
Samnritanun, 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. 

« The briefest rendering of D^^TX^^ wliicli we 
•an give— a full explanation of the tern would ex- 
iced our limits. 

b On this subject the Pent, cjiitiins nothing ex- 
Slicit. Thej' nt first rejected that ilosruia, but adopted 
t at a later period, perhaps since Dositheus ; coiup. 


2. Dissertations, etc., .J. Morinus, Kxercitntiynet 
etc., Par. 1631; Opuscida Ilebr. S-imarilica, Pm 
1G57 ; Antiquitntes Eccl. Orient., Lond. 1682. J 
H. Hottinger, Exercit. Anti-moriniame, etc., Tigur 
1644. Walton, De Pent. Sum. in Prolej/om. ad 
Polyglott. Castell, Animadversiunes, in Polyglott, 
vi. Cellarius, I lone Sauinritame, Ciz. 1682; alsc 
Collectanea, in Ugolini, xxii. Leusden, Pliiloloyw 
Hebr. Utraj. 1686. St. Morinus, Exercit. de Ling 
primcevd, Utr. 1694. Schwarz, JixercitiUiones 
etc. Houbigant, Prolegomena, etc., Par. 174( 
Kennicott, State of the Heb. Text, etc., ii. 1759 
J. G. Carpzov, Crit. Sacra V. T. Pt. 1, Lips 
1728. Hassencamp, Entikckter Ursprung, etc 
0. G. Tychsen, DispuUUio, etc., Biitz. 17G5. Bauer, 
Crit. Sdcr. Gesenius, De Petit. Sam. Origine, 
etc., Hal. 1815 ; Samar. Theologia, etc., Hal. 
1822; Anecdota Exon., Lips. 1824. Hengsteuberg, 
Aulh. des Pent. Mazade, Sur I' Origine, etc., 
Gen. 1830. M. Stuart, N. Amer. Rev. [vol. xxii.] 
Frankel, Vorstudien, Leipz. 1841, [and Einjluss 
d. palestin. Exegese, etc., 1851.] Kirchheiiu, 

'J'n;::')^? "^mS, Frankfort, 1851. The Einleit- 
tiiigen of luchhorn, Bertholdt, Vater, De Wette, 
Hiivernick, Keil, [lileek,] etc. The Geschichten 
of Jost, Herzfeld, etc. 

3. Versions. Winer, De Vers. Pent. Sam. 
De Sacy, 3fem. sur la Vers. Arabe des Livres de 
Mo'ise, in Afem. de Litterature, xlix.. Par. 1808; 
also VEtat actuel des Samaritains, Par. 1812; 
De Versio7ie Sumaritano-Arabica, etc., in luch- 
horn's Allg. Biblwthek, x. 1-176. E. D. 

* 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., hi. 746 ff.; 
Rosen in the Zeitschr. d. deulschen morgeid. Ge- 
sellsch., xviii. 582 fF. ; S. Kohn, De Pentateucho 
Samarilano, Vratisl. 1865, and id. SavKirita- 
nische Studien, Breslau, 1867. A. 

SAM'ATUS {'S.a!xaT6s: Semedius). One of 
the sons of Ozora in the list of 1 Esdr. ix. 34. 
The whole verse is vei'y corrupt. 

* SAMECH, one of the Hebrew letters em- 
]>loyed in the alphabetic compositions. [Poetuy; 
Wkitixg.] H. 

SAME'IUS [3 .syl.] (-Zafxa-ios [Vat. ©n^taios, 
Aid. 2a/xe?os] )• of the sous of llu-im 
(1 I'.sdr. ix. 21; comp. Ezr. x. 21). 

SAM'GAR-NE'BO (^np"~l2PP [see b». 
low] : Semegarnaba). One of the princes or gen- 
erals of the king of Babylon who commanded the 
\'ictorious army of the Chaldoeans at the capture 
of .lerusalem (.Jer. xxxix. 3). The text of the 
LXX. is corrupt. The two names " Samgar- 
nebo, Sarsechim," are there written "ZauLOLyieQ 
[Alex. Y-iaaafxayad] kiA Na^ovadxap. ''he iXebo 
is the Chaldsean Mercury; about the Samgar, opin- 
ions are divided. Von Bolileu suggested that from 
tlie Sanskrit sangara, "war," might be formed 
sdiigara, "warrior," and that this was tlie original 
of Sam<;ar. 

the sayings of Jehudda-hadassi and Massudi. that one 
of tiie two Samaritan sects believes in tbo Uosurrec- 
tion ; Epiphanius, Leontius, Gregory tlie Great, testify 
unnnimously to their former unbelief in this artioU 
of tlieir present fiiith. 

c 71 , Lightfoot " bucella " (?) 



SATVri (TojjSi's; [Vat. Tcc/Seu; Aid. 2a;ui;] 
Alex. 2a^6i: Tobi). Shobai (1 Esdr. v. 28; 
oonip. Kzr. ii. 42). 

SA'MIS (1.0/jids, [Vat. •^ofj.eeis; Alex. 2o- 
ufis; Aid. 2a/tis:] om. iu Vulg.). Shimei 13 
(1 Esdr. ix. 34; comp. Ezr. x. 38). 

SAM'LAH (nb7piZ7 [c/arment] : :^ana5d; 
Alex. 'S.aKa/j.a; [in l" Clir., Kom. Se^SAa; Vat. 
Alex. -2,a/j.aa-] Semla), Geu. xxxvi. 36, 37; 1 Clir. 
'}• 47, 48. One of the kings of Edom, successor to 
Hadad or Hadar. Samlah, whose name signi- 
fies "a garment." was of Maskekah; that being 
probably 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- 
Bisted of a confederacy of tribes, and that tlie chief 
city of the reigning tribe was the metropolis of the 
whole. E. S. P. 

SAM'MUS {:S.aixp.ois; [Vat. So^^uoi;:] Sa- 
mus). Shema (1 Esdr. ix. 43; comp. Neh. viii. 

SA'MOS {"Zafjios [liiiyht: Samus]). A very 
illustrious Greek island off that part of Asia Minor 
where Ionia touches Cakia. For its history, irom 
the time when it was a powerful member of the Ionic 
coniederacy to its recent struggles against Turkey 
during the war of independence, and since, we must 
refer to the Did. of Greek and Rom. Geog." Sa- 
mos is a very lofty and commanding island; the 
word, in fact, denotes a height, especially by the sea- 
shore: heuce, also, the name of Samothhacia, or 
" the Thracian Samos." The Ionian Samos comes 
oefore 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 Jliletus, 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 Teogylliuji, 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, i'rom 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. Ani. 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 del'ile de Patmos et de Vile de Samos 
(Paris, 185G), by V. Gu^rin, who spent two 
months in the island. J. S. H. 

o A curious illustratiou of the renown of the Sa- 
mian earthenware is furnished by the Vulgate render- 
ing of Is xlv. 9 : " Testa de Samiis terrffi." 

b * Samotlirace lies iu the track of' the steamers 
from Con.stantiuople to Neapolis (Kavalla) andThessa- 
onica. The work of A. Couze, Reist aiif den Inseln 
des Tlirakischen Meeres, contains the lesults of a visit 
In 1858 to Thaeos, Samothrace, luibros, and Limnos, 
toainly for the purpose of copying monumental sculp- 
tures and inscriptions. Some of those in Samothrace 
tre »pecially interesting on account of their great an- 


SAMOTHRA'CIA (2a/io0;aV7? [proh. /leigh, 

of Thrace}: Sarnoilu'acia). Tlie mention of this 
island in the account of St. Paul's first \oyage 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 lull in view 
if tlie weather was clear, throughout that voyage 
from Troas to Neapolis. From the shore at Troas 
Samothrace is seen towering o\er Imbros (Horn. 
//. xiii. 12, 13; Kinglake's Eothen, p. 64), and it is 
similarly a marked object in the view from thehills 
between Neapolis and Philippi (Clarke's Traveln, 
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 fitir wind. Not only are we told that it occtipied 
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 (euOvSpo- 
IJ.ri(Tafj.€v) implies that they ran liefore the wind. 
Now the position of Samothrace is exactly such as 
to correspond )vith these notices, and thus incident ■ 
ally to confirm the accuracy of a n)ost artless nar- 
rative. St. Paul and his companions anchored ror 
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 -afteulea^-ing 
the Dardanelles, and easterly between Samothrace 
and the mainland. Fuller details are given in 
Life (Hid Kpp. of St. Paul, 2d. ed. i. 335-338. 
The chief classical associations of this island are 
mythological and connected with the mysterious 
divinities called Cabeiri. Perseus took refuge here 
after his defeat by the Romans at Pydna. In St. 
PauTs time Samothrace had, according to Pliny, 
the pri\ileges of a snjall free state, though it was 
doubtless considered a dependency of the province 
of Macedonia.'' J. S. H. 

SAMP'S AMES ([Rom. Sin.] Xcc/j^^pdfir,s, 
[Alex.] 2aiJ.\paKr]s'. Lampsacus, Sampsnmes), a 
name which occurs in the list of those to whom the 
Romans are said to have sent letters in fiwor 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 Grinun identifies with 
Samsun on the coast of the Black Sea, between 
Sinope and Trebizond. B. F. W. 

SAM'SON (]'ltt^52K.'. i. e. Shimshon : ^afx- 
xf/wu: [Samson,'] "little sun," or "sunlike;" bill 
according to Joseph. Ant. v. 8, § 4 "strong: " if 
the root sliemisli 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 
wag the seat. Fr. W. J. Schelling maintains the She- 
mitic origin of these rites and of some ol the associated 
teachings in his noted lecture, Ueber die Gottheiten 
von Samolhrake. See also Creuzcr's Symbolik, ii. 
302 flf. It is worth mentioning that the old form of 
the Greek future which has generally disappeared 
from the modern Greek is found to be ronimon ii 
t kese rarely visited retreats of the r d HelleuR; race. 


ooked upon the angel wlio announced Samson's 
oirth — see Judg. xiii. 6, 18-20, and Joseph. I. c), 
son of Manoah, a man of the town of Zorah, in the 
tribe of Dan, on the border of Judah (Josh. xv. 
33, six. 41). The miraculous circumstances of his 
birth are recorded in Judg. xiii. ; and the three fol- 
lowuig 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 
tribes mentioned, were sulject 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. Prom the angel's speech to Samson's mother 
(Judg. xiii. 5), it appears further that the Israelites 
were already subject to the Philistines at his birth; 
and as Samson cannot have begun to be judge be- 
fore he wag»twenty years of age, it follows that his 
judgeship must about have coincided with the last 
twenty years of Philistine dominion. But when 
we turn to the First Book of Samuel, and especial!)- 
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 general 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 Sanmel 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 ohaplet on his head, 
led him out in solemn proce.«sion, intending to otfer 
him in sacrifice to Jupiter. For awhile he submitted 
juietly ; but when they led him up to the altar, and 
Degan the ceremonie^, he put forth hi.s strength and 
llew them all " (Rawllus. Herod, book ii 45). 

The passage from Lycophron, with the scholiou, 
quoted by Bochart (Hieroz. pars ii. lib. v. cap. xii ), 
vhere Ilen^uJes is said to have been three nights in 
li" b"Uy ot the sea-mouster, 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 nius. 
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 feet 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.), seenia 
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 digiuty to the profession 
which is alluded to in Lam. iv. 7, 8. 

(3.) Samson is one of those who are distinctly 
spoken of in Scripture as endowed with supernat- 
ural power by the Spirit of the Lord. " The 
Spirit of the Lord began to move him at times in 
iMahaneh-Dan." " The Spirit of the Lord came 
mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon 
his arms became as flax burnt with fire." "The 
Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went 
down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them. 
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. 2.5, xiv. G, 19, xv. 14, xvi. 20). 
The phrase, "the Spirit of the Lord came upon 
him," is conmion to him with Othniel and Gideon 
(.ludg. 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 throwing 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 forcilJy the Israelites 
would be taught, by such an example, that their 
national strength lay in their complete separation 
from idolatry, and con,secration to the true God; 
and that He could give them power to suhdue their 
mightiest enemies, if only they were true to his 
service (conip. 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 
Nemeoean lion ; the coming liy his death at the 
hands of his wife; and especially the story told by 
Herodotus of the captivity of Hercules in Egypt," 

wit/i the loss of nil his hnir, is also curious, and seema 
to be a compound of the stories of Samson and Jonah 
To this may be added the connection between Samson. 
considered as derived from She mesh., "the sun," and 
the designation of Moui, the Egyptian Hercules, ag 
" Son of the Sun,"' wor.«hipped also under the name 
Stm, which Sir G. Wilkinson compares with Samson 
The Tyrian Hercules (whose temple at Tyre is de- 
scribed by Herodot. ii. 44), he also tells us, " wa« 
originally the Sun, and the same as Baal " (Raw! 
Herod, ii. 44, note 7). The connection between th« 



are certainly remarkable coincidences. Phoenician 
traflers niii;lit easily have carried stories concerninif 
the Hebrew hero to the different countries where 
they traded, especially Greece and Italy; and such 
stories would ha\'e been uioulded according to the 
taste or iniaguiation of those who heard them. 
The following description of Hercules given by C. 
O. JMiiller {Dorians, b. ii. c. 12) might almost 
have been written for Samson : " The highest de- 
gree of human sufTcring and courage is attril)uted 
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. E\ery crime, however, is 
atoned for by some new suflering; but nothing 
breaks his invincible courage, until, purified from 
earthly corruption, he ascends jNIount 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 
thouffht, 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 l)an. 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 B;ial Shemen, Baal Shemesh. 
and Baal Uamman), and Hercules is well known. 

Gesenius ( Tfies. s. v. 75?3) tells us that, in certiiin 
Phoenician inscripcious, which are accompanied by a 
Greek translation, Bnal is rendered Hrrakles, and that 
" the Tyrian Hercules " is the const:iut 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 
Thich has an image of the sun on the upper part of 
the monument {Man. Pliczn. i. 171 ; ii. tab 21). 
Another evidence of the identity of the Phoenician 
Baal and Hercules may be found in Batili, r.ear Baiae, 
place sacred to Hercules ("locus Herculis," SercOi 
»nt evidently .«o called from Baal. Thirlwall (Hist, nf 
Greece) aacnbea 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 thij 
article, a full article in Winer, Realiob.\ Ewald 
(Jesdiichte, ii. 516, &c.; Bertheau, On Judyes 
Bayle's IHct. A. 0. H. 

SAM'UEL (bS^a^, i. e. Shemuel: 2a/f 
ov7]\- [Samuel:] Arabic, Samml, or Aschmouyl, 
see D'Herbelot, under this last name). Different 

derivations have been given. (1.) VS D^, " name 
of God:" so apparently Origen (Eus. H. K. vi. 

25), 0€o/cA.7jT<iy. (2.) bs mtt?, "placed by 

God." (3.) bs btSLi', "asked of God" (1 
Sam. i. 20). Josephus ingeniously makes it cor- 
respond to the well-known Greek name Theoetetus. 

(4.) bs '3^t2W, "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 jNIoses has been assigned 
to the sacred book, now divided into five, which 
covers the period of the foundation of the Jewish 
Church itself. In fact no character of equal matr- 
nitude -had arisen since the death of the great 
Lawgiver. • 

He was the son of Elkanah, an Ephrathite or 
Ephraimite, and Hannah or Anna. His father is 
one of the few private citizens in whose household 
we find polygamy. It may possibly have arisen 
from the irregularity of the period. 

The descent of Elkanah is involved in great ob- 
scurity. In 1 Sam. i. 1 he is described as an 
Ephraimite. In 1 Chr. vi. 22, 23 he is made a 
descendant of Korah the Levite. Hengstenberg 
(on Ps. Ixxviii. 1) and Ewald (ii. 433) explain this 
by supposing that the Levites were occasionally in- 
corporated into the tril)es amongst whom they 
dwelt. The question, howe\er, 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 tlie vexed questions of 
sacred geography, as his descent is of sacred gene- 
alogy. [See Rajiaii, and Kamathaim-Zophim.] 
All that appears with certainty from the accounts 
is tha.t it was in the hills of Ephraim, and (as may 
be inferred from its name) a double height, usee' 
for the purpose of beacons or out lookers (1 Sam. i. 

Phoenicians in honor of Baal in their diflerent 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 (tiieroz. 
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 Hircutes with Samson etymologically 
(See Sir Q. Wilkinson's note in Rjiwlinson's Herod, i} 
43 ; Patrick, On Judg. xvi. 30 ; Cornel, a Lapide, etc 
But none of these etymologies are very ronviucinK. 


1). At the foot of the hill was a well (1 Sam. six. 
22!. On the brow of its two summits was the 
eity. It never lost its hold on Samuel, who in later 
life made it his fixed abode. 

The combined family must 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 Simuel that our chief 
attention is fi.xed in the account of his birth. She 
is descriljgd as a woman of a high religious niis- 
gion. Almost a Nazarite by practice (1 Sam. i. 
]5), and a prophetess in her gifts (1 Sam. ii. 1), 
she sought from Gocl 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 
wui-ld, expressed her sense of the urgency of her 
entreaty — Sumuel, " the Asked or Heard of God." 

Living in the great age of vows, she hafl before 
his birth dedicated him to the ottice of a Nazarite. 
As soon as he was weaned, she herself with her 
husljand 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 simibir 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 {i>XX.). an ephah of 
flour, and a skin of wine (1 Sam. i. 24). First 
took place tlie 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- 
cordinL' to the Hebrew text, but not the LXX.) 
the child himself performed an act of worship. 

The hymn which followed on this consecration 
is the first of the kind in the sacred volume. It is 
possible that, like m^ny 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. J 

From this time the child is shut up in the 
Tabernacle. The priests furnished hira 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 little mantle reaching 
down to his feet, such as was worn only by high 
personages, or women, over the other dress, and 
such as he retained, as his 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 tbe doors at sunrise. 

In this way his childhood was passed. It was 
whilst thus sleeping in the Tabernacle he re- 
ceived his first prophetic call. The stillness of the 
night — the sudden voice — the childlike misconcep- 
tion — the venerable Kli — the contrast .letween the 
':«rrible doom and the gentle creature who has to 



a According to the Mussulman tradition, Samuel's 
>irth is grauted in answer to the prayers of the nation 
»n 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 Samuers 
career that has been so weU caught in the well- 
known picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds. 

Fi'om this moment the prophetic character of 
Samuel was established. His words were treasured 
up, and Shiloh became the resort of those wh: 
came to hear him (iii. 19-21). 

In the overthrow of the sanctuary, which fo 
lowed shortly on this vision, we hear not wha 
became of Sanniel." He next appears, prol)ably 
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 offering up a sacrifice, and 
sustaining this loud cry (compare the situation of 
Pausanias before the battle of Plata>a, Herod, ix. 
61), that the Philistine host suddenly burst upon 
them. A violent thunderstorm, and (according to 
.Josephus, Ani. 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 Samuel's triumph, 
and gave to the place its name of Eben-ezer, " the 
Stone of Help," which has thence passed i:;to 
Christian phraseology, and become a couinion name 
of Nonconformist chapels (1 Sam. vii. 12). The 
old Cauaanites, whom the Philistines had dispos- 
sessed in the outskirts of the .Judaan 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 office of "Judge"' 
(comp. 1 Sam. xii. 11, where he is thus reckoned 
with Jerubbaal, Bedan, and Jephthah ; and I'xclus. 
xlvi. 15-18). He visited, in discharge of his duties 
as ruler, the three chief sanctuaries (eV ttocti to?s 
Ti-yiafffx^vois TovToii) on the west of the Jordan — 
Bethel, tiilgal, and .Mizpeh (1 Sam. vii. 16). His 
own residence was still his native city, Kamah or 
Ramathaim, which he further consecrated by an 
altar (vii. 17). Here he married, and two sons 
grew up to repeat imder 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" (vns/ivi, 1 Chr. vi. 28). In 
his old age, according to the quasi-hereditary priii- 
ci[)le, 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, 
liad he died in youth his fame would hardly have 
lieen irreatei than that of Gideon or Samson. He 

(Dllerbelot, Asrkmouyl). This, though false Is t>< 
letter, is true to the spirit '•f Samuel's life. 

2822 ^ SAMUEL 

was a judge, a Nazarite, a warrior, and (to a cer- 
tain point) a prophet. 

But his peculiar position in the sacred narrative 
turns on the events which follow. He is the in- 
iiugurator 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 {Aiit. 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 gdvernment, 
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 o\ei' 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 solenmly 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 
3f 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^ihacT/xa) — not even a 
sandal (virSSyifxa, 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 Jlay or June, in answer to Samuers 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 acknov\ledged 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 constitutioUj 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 
3. 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 nf 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 (he 
days of /lis 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 6 /SAe- 
TTcoj', he is called in the Acta Sanctorum. Of the 
three modes by which Divine communications were 
then made, " by dreams, Urim and Thunnnim, 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 vvc. 

n73). 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, comliined 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 ])eculiar 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 c7-ied 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 was, if a Levite, yet certainly not » 
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 

Teing of the tribe of Judah. The sign that Saul was (belot, Asckmouyl). 

the king was the liquefaction of the sacred oil in hii 
presence and the recovery of the Tabernacle (D'H»» 


he never appears in the remotest connection with 
the priestly order. Amongst all the places in- 
cluded in his personal or administrative visits, 
neither ShiJoh, nor Nob, nor Gibeon, the seats of 
the sacerdutal caste, are ever mentioned. When 
he counsels Saul, it is not as the priest, but as the 
prophet ; when be 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 itito 
sacerdotal functions, but of disobedience to the 
prophetic voice. The first was that of not waiting 
for Samuel's arrival, according to the sign given 
by Samuel at his original meeting at Ramah (1 
Sam. X. 8, xiii. 8); the second was that of not car- 
rying out the stern prophetic injunction for the 
destruction of the Amalekites. When, on that 
occasion, the aged Prophet called the captive " prince 
before him, and with his own hands hacked him 
limb from limb,'' in retribution for the desolation 
he had brought into the homes of Israel, and thus 
offered up his mangled remains almost as a human 
sacrifice (" before the Lord in Gilgal "), we see the 
representative of the older part of the Jewish his- 
tory. But it is the true prophetic utterance, such 
as breathes through the psalmists and prophets, when 
he says to Saul in words which, from their jwetical 
form, must have become fixed in the national mem- 
ory, " To obey is better than sacrifice, and to 
hearken than the fat of rams." 

The parting was not one of rivals, but of dear 
though divided friends. The King throws himself 
on the Prophet with all his force; not without a 
vehement efiurt (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 after him, Samuel saw in this the 
omen of the coming rent in the monarchy. They 
parted each to his house to meet no more. liut 
a long shadow of grief fell over the prophet. 
" Samuel mourned for Saul." " It grieved Samuel 
for Saul." " How long wilt thou mourn for Saul V " 
(1 Sam. XV. 11, 35, xvi. 1). 

(0.) He is the first of the regular succession of 
prophets. " All the prophets from Samuel and 
those that follow after" (Acts iii. 24). "Ex quo 
sanctus Samuel propheta coepit et deinceps donee 
populus Israel in Babylonian! captivus veheretur, 

totum est tempus prophetarum " (.4ug. 

Civ. Dei, xvii. 1). Moses, Miriam, and Deborah, 
perhaps Ehud, had been propiiets. But it was only 
from Samuel that the continuous succession was 
unbroken. This may have been merely i'rom the 
coincidence of his appearance with the beginning 
of the new order of tilings, 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 Zop/iim, as the affix of I>a- 
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 nrophets." But the connection of 



o Agag is desci-ibed by Josephus (Ant. vi. 7, ^ 2) as 
i rhief of magnificeut appearance ; and hence rescued 
from destruction. This is perhaps an inference from 

Jie word n3"ll?^, which the Vulgate translates 

the continuity of the office with Samu'el appears to 
be still more direct. It is in his lifetime, long after 
lie 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 prophets," by 
modern writers "the schools of the prophets." All 
the peculiarities of their education are implied or 
expressed — the sacred dance, tile sacred music, the 
solemn procession (1 Sam. x. 5, 10; 1 Chr. xxv. 1, 
6). At the head of this congregation, or "church 
as it were within a church" (LXX. rr^u iKKXrj- 
fflav, 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 habitationa 
{Naiulh, 1 Sam. xix. 19, &c.) apparently of a rustio 
kind, like the leafy huts which Elisha's disciples 
afterwards occupied by the Jordan {Niiiotli=r. 
"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 descrilied as hav- 
ing been in the company of Samuel's disciples, and 
as having caught from them the prophetic lervoi 
to such a degree as to have " proiihesied among 
them " (1 Sam. x 10, 11), and on one occasion t<; 
have thrown oft' 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 madness on ordinary occasions 
(1 Sam. xviii. 9). Another was David. The 
first acquaintance of Samuel with David, was when 
he privately anointed him at the house of Jesse 
[see Daviu]. But the connection thus begun 
with the shepherd boy must have been continued 
afterwards. David, at first, fled . to " Naioth in 
Kamah," as to his second home (1 Sam. xix. 19), 
and the gifts of music, of song, and of prophecy, 
here developed on so large a scale, were exactly 
such as we find in the notices of those who looked 
up to Samuel as their father. It is, further, 
hardly possible to escajie the conclusion that David 
there first met his fast friends and companions 
in after life, prophets like himself — Gau 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 Pounder of the 
first regular institutions of religious instruction, 
and communities for the purposes of education. 
'I'he schools of Greece were not yet in existence. 
From these Jewish institutions were develo|)ed, by 
a natural order, the universities of Christendom. 
And it may be further added, that with this view 
the whole life of Samuel is in accordance. He ia 
the prophet — the only prophet till the time of 
Isaiali — 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 

b 1 Sam. XV. The LXX. softens tliis into eiT<j)a(t 
but tiie Vulg. translation, in frusta rnncidit, " cut Uf 
into small pieces," seems to be the true meiiuing. 



ill the j-ear of the close of David's wanderings. It 
is said with peculiar emphasis, as if to mark the 
loss, that " aW the Israelites" — all, with a uiii- 
rersality 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 .citj", 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 Jcta 
Saiichn-uiii, Aug. 20). 

The situation of Itamathaim, as has been observed, 
is uncertain. But the place lung 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 Sarnwil, " the Prophet 
Samuel." The tradition can be traced back as 
fai* as the 7th century, when it is spoken of as the 
monastery of St. Samuel (Robinson, Bibl. Jics. ii. 
142), and if once we discard the connection of 
Ranjathaim with the nameless city where Sanniel 
met Saul (as is set forth at length in the articles 
Kamah; Ramathaim-Zophim), there is no reason 
why the tradition should be rejected. A cave is 
Btill sliowii underneath the floor of the mosque. 
" He built the tonib in his lifetime," is the account 
of the JMussulman guardian of the mosque, " but 
was not buried here till after the expulsicjn 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 
conunanding 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; Ecchis. xlvi. 20) belongs to the history 
of Saul. 

It has been supposed that Samuel wrote a Life 
of David (of course of his earlier years), which was 
still accessible to one of the authors of the Book of 
Chronicles (1 Chr. xxix. 29); but this appears 
doubtful. [See p. 2826 b.] Various other books 
of the O. T. have been ascribed to him by the 
Jewish tradition: the Judges, Ruth, the two Books 
of Samuel, the latter, it is alleged, being written 
in the spirit of prophecy. He is regarded by the 
Samaritans as a magician and an infidel (Iluttin- 
ger, f/ist. Orient, p. 52). 

The Persian traditions fix his life in the time 
o? Kai-i-Kobad, 2d king of Persia, with whom he 
Ie said to have conversed (DTlerbolot, Kai Kohad). 

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, continually en- 
(laged in harassing wars with their neighbors, and 
pften falling for long periods together under their 
Dower. It was therefore a natural desire that they 


should have a king to reunite them in one nation- 
ality, and enable them to ni;ike head against theii 
foes. 'I'o this Samuel was earnestly opjwsed, nor 
did he acquiesce in their wish until expressly di- 
rected to do so from on high. God 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 l)e reduced tc 
the level of otiier nations. It was l)y no means an 
" example of the Divine sanction resting on [Sam- 
uel'sj acquiescence;" but rather of a Divine com- 
mand to him to let a stift-necked people have their 

In the Tabernacle Samuel probably slept in one 
of the chamljers over, or at the side of, the Taber- 
nacle [Temple]. 'I'he extreme improbability that 
he should have slept in the Holy of Holies is en- 
hanced by the fact that he was evidently in a 
diflerent 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 
was" and the time is fixed as "before the lamp of 
God" — which was outside the vail — "went out 
in the Temple of tiie Lord." No hint is given of 
the place of Sanniel'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 oflering sacrifice (ver 10). 
The name " warrior " must therefore be omitted 
from the list of his titles. 

The nairative in 1 Sam. ix. 7, 8, aflbrds no 
ground for the supposition that either he or other 
inspired prophets received compensation for tneir 
utterances as a quid pro quo 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 iis a tribute to the rank and 
station of Samuel than as a proposed payment for 
his counsel — a thing abhorrent to the whole idea 
of the prophetic office. 

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 Lopd; 
I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt ofit;r- 
ing." Samuel replies — making no allusion to 
the not waiting for his coming, — " Thou hast dona 
foolishly : thou hast not kept the commandment of 
the Lord thy God." 

It is impossible that Saul, and improbable that 
David had any training in the schools of the 
pro]ihets under Samuel. The first passage adduced 
in the article abo\e in 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 Samue. 
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. 


six 24) is quite late in the reign of Saul when he 
catije to Naioth in pursuit of David, and th'^re 
spent a day and a night, while the spirit of proph- 
ecy was upor. him. In both cas:s the astonish- 
ment of the beholders is expressed by tlie exclama- 
tion, " Is Saul also among the prophets ? " — which 
of course contradicts the supposition that he had 
been trained among them. In regard to David, 
it is inaccurately said that he fled to " ' Naioth in 
Kamah ' 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 purjjDse was to seek refuge with Samuel, 
the aged judge whom Saul still feared and re- 
spected. He went to his residence at Ilamah. 
For reasons not mentioned, but probably from pru- 
dential considerations, they left then together and 
"went and dwelt at Naioth." 

Some other slight inadvertencies in the above 
article the reader will readily correct for himself. 

F. G. 

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF (bs^i::!^ : 
BaatAeiiOf npcirri, AevTfpa : Liber Reyitm 
Primus, Secuiuliis). Two historical books of the 
Old I'estament, which are not separated from each 
other in tlie 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 Irom the Septuagint. But Origen, as quoted 
by Eusebius {Histor. Ecchs. vi. 25), expressly states 
that they formed only one book among the He- 
brews. Jerome (/"/'(f/'. in Libros S(()nti(fl et Mal- 
acliim) implies the same statement; and iii the 
Talmud {Babii Baihra, fol. 14. c. 2), wherein the 
authorship is attributed to Samuel, they are desig- 
nated by the name of his book, in the singular 

number (IIDD ^HS bsi^l^;). After the in- 
vention of printing they were pulilished as one 
book in the first edition of the whole Bible printed 
at Soncino in 1488 a. d., and likewise in theCom- 
plutensian Polyglot printed at Alcala, 1.502-1517 
A. I).; and it was 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 the birth and 
life of Samuel were the sulijects treated of in the 
beginning of the work — just as a treatise on fes- 
tivals in the Mishna bears the name of Btilsali, an 
egg, because a question connected with the eating of 
an egg is the first sulject discussed in it. [Phaiu- 
SEEs, vol. iii. p. 2475 <(.] It has been suggested 
indeed by Aliarhanel, as quoted by Carpzov (211), 
that the book was called 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 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 maimer. And, 
generally, it is to be observed that the logical titles 
of books adopted in modern times must not be 
loolied for in Eastern works, nor indeed in early 
works bf modern Europe. Thus David's Lamen- 
tation over Saul and Jonathan was called " Tlie 
Bow," for so-ne reason connected with the occur- 
rence of that word hi his poem (2 Sam. i. 13-22); 
and Suorro Storleson's Chronicle of the Kings of 


Norway obtained the name of " Heimskringla," 
the World's Circle, because Heimskringla was the 
first ]irominent word of the MS. that caught the 
eye (Laiiig's fhimskrinyhi^ i. 1). 

Avtliorship awl Date of the Book. — The most 
interesting [joints 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 
.tliese points, however, in reference to the book of 
Samuel, more questions can be asked than can be 
answered, and the results of a dispassionate ii'quiry 
are mainly negative. 

1st, as to the authorship. In common with all 
the historical books of the r)ld Testament, except 
the beginning of Nehemiah, the book of Samuel 
contains no mention in the text of the name of its 
author. 'I'he earliest Greek historical work extant, 
written by one who has fre(]iiently been called the 
Father of liistory, commences with the words, 
" This is a publication of the researches of Herod- 
otus of Halicarna-ssus ; " and the motives which 
induced Herodotus to wTite the work are then set 
forth. Thucydides, the writer of the Creeii 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 iietween the Peloi)omiesians and 
Athenians,'' and frequently uses the Ibrmula that 
such or such a year ended — the second, or third, 
or fourth, as the case might be — "of tliis war of 
which Thucydides wrote the history" (ii. 70, 10^1; 
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 Olorus, 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 Ezra, written in the first 
person. Still, without any statement of tiie author- 
ship embodied in the text, it is possilile that his 
torical books might come down to us with a title 
containing the name qf the author. This is the 
case, for example, with Livy's Roman /Jistvry, and 
Ctesar's Cvminaititrics of ihe Gallic War. In the 
latter case, indeed, although Csesar mentions a long 
series of his own actions, without intimating that 
he was the author of the work, and thus there is an 
antecedent improl lability that he wrote it, yet the 
traditional title of the work outweighs this inq)rob- 
ability, confirmed as the title is, by an unbroken 
chain of testimony, commencing with contempo- 
raries (Cicero, Brut. 75; Ctesar, De Bell. Gall. 
viii. 1; Suetonius, ./w/. Gbs. 56; Quinctilian, x. 1; 
Tacitus, Germ. 28). Here, ag.ain, there is noth- 
ing precisely similar in Hebrew history. The five 
books of the Pentateuch have in Hebrew no title 
except the first Flebrew words of each part ; and 
the titles Genesis, ICxodus, Leviticus, Numbers. 
and Deuteronomy, which are derived from the Sep- 
tuaiiint, 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, Ituth, Sam- 
uel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, tliere is nothing 
in the works th :mselves to preclude the idea that 
in each case the subject only M" the -vork may Iw 


indicated, and not its authorship; as is shown con- 
clusively by the titles Ruth and Esther, which no 
one has yet construed into the assertion that those 
celebrated women wrote the works concerning theni- 
Belves. And it is iiidisputalile 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 Sanmel, 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 p.articularly significant. 
He published his Antiquities about 1100 years 
after the death of David, and in tliem he makes 
constant use of the book of Samuel for one 
portion of his history. Indeed, it is his exclusive 
authority ibr his account of Samuel and Saul, and 
his main authority, in conjunction with the Chron- 
icles, lor the history of I)a\id. 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 Gemara, 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 {Babn 
Batlivd, fol. 14, c. 2), in a passage already referred 
to, that " Sauuiel 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 autiiority of any 
kind, it would be unworthy of credit even if it 
were not opposed to the internal e\idence of the 
book itself. At the revival of learning, an opinion 
was propounded by Abarbanel, a learned Jew, 
t A. u. 1508, that the book of Samuel was written 
by the prophet Jeremiah" (Lat. by Aug. I'i'eitler, 
Leipzig, lt)8G), and this opinion was adopted by 
Hugo Grotius (Pre/', ad Librum pt-iorcin Sum- 
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 must 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- 
teuanced 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 

o Professor Hitzig, in like manner, attributes some 
of the Psalms to Jeremiah. In support of this view, 
he points out, 1st, several special iustauces of striking 
Biniilarity of language between those Psalms and the 
writings of Jeremiah, and, 2dly, agreement between 
Ustorical 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 
tlie book of Sanmel were written by the prophet 
himself, and the rest of the chapters by the prtphets 
Nathan and Gad. This is the view favored by 
Mr. Home {Introduction to the IJoly Scriptures, 
ed. 1846, p. 45), in a work which has had very ex- 
tensive circulation, and which amongst many read- 
ers has been the only work of the kind consulted 
in I'.ngland. If, however, the authoritj' adduced 
by him is examined, it is found to be ultimately 
the opinion " of the Talmudists, which was adopted 
by the most learned Eathers of the Christian 
Church, who miquestionably had better means of 
ascertaining this point than we have." Now the 
absence of any evidence for this opinion in the 
Talmud has been already indicated, and it is diffi- 
cult to understand how the opinion could have been 
stamped with real value through its adoption by 
learned Jews called Talmudists, or by learned 
Christians called Eathers of the Christian Church, 
who lived subsequently (o the pu1)lication of the 
raJmud. Eor there is not the slightest reason for 
supposing that in the year 500 a. t> either Jews or 
Christians had access to trustworthy documents on 
this subject which have not been transmitted to 
modern times, and without such docunients 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: 1st, the 
growth of stricter ideas as to the importance of 
knowing who was the author of any historical work 
which advances claims to be trustworthy; and 
2(lly, the mistranslation of an ambiguous passage 
in the Eirst 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 dibrei, 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 refei-ence to the Chron 
ieles, .as the Chronicles are the very last work in the 
Hebrew Bible; and whether this arose from their 
having been the last admitted into the Canon, or 
the last composed, it is scarcely probable that any 
translation in the Septuagint, with one great ex- 
ception, was made so soon after the composition of 
the original. The rendering of the Septuagint is 
by the word x6yot, in' the sense, so well known 
in Herodotus, of "history" (i. 184, ii. IGl, vi. 
137), and in the like sense in the Apocrypha, 
wherein it is used to descrilie the history of Tobit, 
i3i/3Aos A(^7a)t/ ToiySiV. Tlie word "history" 
{Gescliiclite) 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. 
48-85). 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. Se« 
Psahns xxxi., xxxv., il. 


»f the learned Dr. Zunz (Berlin, 1858). In the 
English \'ersion, however, the word di/ji-ti is trans- 
lated in the first instance "acts" as applied to 
l^avid, and then "book" as applied to Samuel, 
Nathan, and Gad; and thus, througli the anihi- 
guity of the word "book " the possibility is sujif- 
pested 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 dilivei as " book," 
for which there is a distinct Hebrew word — 
tepher. And it maybe deemed morally certain 
that this passage of the Chronicles is no authority 
for the supposition that, when it was written, any 
work was in existence of which either Gad, 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 historj' was probably composed. Evidence on 
this head is eitlier 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 
Philadelpiius, who died b. c. 247, and the century 
before the birth of Christ. The next liest 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, founding 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- 
niiah himself did in fact ever found such a library,* 
yet it is good evidence to prove that the Acts of 
the Kings, ra trepl toiv I3acn\fwv, were in exist- 
ence when the passage was written ; and it can- 
not reasonably be doubted that tliis 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 
.he book of Samuel was written liefore 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 Uavid, 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 Sanniel, 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 
fhe four Instances Is translated '' acta " ( Gernin^nr), 
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. 

(> Professors Ewald and Bleek have accepted the 
jtatement that Nehemiah founded such a library, and 
they make inferences irom the account of the library 
\8 to the time when certiiiu books of the Old Testa- 
Bent were admitted into the Canon. Tbere are, how- 


his death, it appears most reasonable to conclude 
(although this ])oint is open to dispute) that the 
writer of the Chronicles refeired to this work by 
the title History of Sanuiel. In this case, admit- 
ting the date assigned, on internal grounds, to the 
Chronicles l)y a modern .lewish writer of undoubted 
learning and critical powers, there would he exter- 
nal evidence for the existence of the book of Sam- 
uel earlier than 247 b. c, though not earlier than 
ol2 B. c, the era of the Seleucidse (Zunz, I>ie 
Gottesdienstlichen Vortnige der Juileii. 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 exteinal 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 eailier. 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 o\)- 
servances. According to the Mosaic Law as finally 
establ shed, sacrifices to Jehovah were not lawful 
anywhere but before the door of the Tabernacle of 
the congregation, wiiether 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, Ka- 
mah. Bethel, the threshing-place of Arauuah the 
Jebusite, and elsewhere, not oidy 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 .losiah, 
when Hilkiah the high-priest told Shaphan the 
scribe that he had found the Book of the Law in 
the house of Jeho\ah, 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 ex[iressed 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 cou- 
sideratioTis it is entitled to peculiar weight. The 
natural mode of dealipg 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 le'ter, that 
Nehemiah built the Temple of Jerusalem (i 18). No 
witness in a court of justice, whose credit lad been 
shaken to a similar extent, would, unless corroborated 
by other evidence, be relied on a» vn authority for anv 
important fact. 


undoubtedly lived later than the reformation of Jo- 
giah. or than the beginning, at least, of the captiv- 
ity of Judah (2 K. xxv. 21, 27). This writer men- 
tions the toleration of worsliij) on high-places with 
disapprobation, not only in coiniection with bad 
kings, such as Manasseh and Ahaz, but hkewise as 
B drawback in the excellence of other kings, such as 
Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah, and 
Jothani, who are praised for having done what was 
right in the sight of Jehovah (1 K. xv. 14, xxii. 43 ; 
2 K. xii. 3, xiv. 4, xv. 4, 35, xvi. 4, xxi. 3); and 
something of the same kind might have been 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. Alter the return 
from the Captivity, and more especially after the 
changes introduced liy I'^zra, IMoses became that 
great central figure in the thoU|,;hts 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 jiropliet 
who connnunicated them directly from Jehovah. 
This transcendent importance of Jloses 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 times; 
in Judges three times; but in Samuel only twice 
(Zunz, Vortvfuje, 35). And it is worthy of note 
that in each case JNIoses is merely mentioned with 
Aaron as having brought the Israelites out of the 
land of Egypt, but nothing whatever is said of the | 
Lnw 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 
acted 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 iSloses" (1 K. 
ii. 3). Thus the author of the book of Chronicles 
makes, for the reign of David, a calculation of money 
in claries, 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, .losephus, in his Aniiquitits of 
llie Jens, 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- 
Hon from the book of Samuel, he represents the 
prophet Samuel as exhorting the j)eople to bear in 
mind "the code of laws which Moses had given 
them" {rrjs Mai'vfffCiis vofxaOeaias, -int. vi. 5, § 3), 
though tliere is no mention of Moses, or of his leg- 
islation, in the coiTesponding passage of Samuel (1 

" As compared with Samuel, the peculiarities of 
the Peutateuch are not qiiitr as striking as the Uiffer- 
•D ■^«8 in language between Lucretius and Virgil : the 


Sam. xii. 20-25). Again, in giving an account o 
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 tenijile should be burned 
{Ant. iv. 8, § 46). But no passage can be pointed 
out in the whole Pentateuch in which such a threat 
occurs; and in fact, according to the received 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 urjbuilt 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 (Anl. 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," though 
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 ; but 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 undisptited prophecies of 
Isaiah hold in poetical or prophetical language. It 
is free from the peculiarities "-f the book of Judges, 
which it is proposed to account ibr by supjiosing 
that tbey 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, IJtbreio Orammar, § 2, 5). 
It is a striking contrast to the language of the book 
of Chronicles, which undoubtedly belongs to the 
silver age of Helirew prose, and it does not contain 
as man)' alleged Chaldaisms as the few in the book 
of Kings. Indeed the iiumlier 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 langu.ige, it is not onl}' possi- 
ble, bu't 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; fbi 
some writings, the date of which is about the time 
of the Captivity, are in pure Hebrew, such as the 
prophecies of Habakknk, the Psalms cxx., cxxxvii., 
cxxxix., pointed out by Gesenius, and by far tlie 
largest portion of the latter part of the prophecies 
attriliuted 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 direction, and, as a subsidiary argument, 

parallel which has been suggested by Gesenius. Vir- 
gil seem.* to have been about 14 years of age when 
Lucretius' great poem was published. 


the purity of language of the book of Samuel is 
eutitled to some weight. 

Assuming, then, that the work was composed at 
% period not later than the reformation of Josiah, — 
say, B. C. 622, — tlie question arises as to the very 
earliest point of time at which it could have existed 
m its present form. And the answer seems to he, 
that the earliest period was subsequent to tlie seces- 
sion of the 'I'en Tribes. This results from the pas- 
sage in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, wherein it is said of Ua- 
vid, "Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day: 
irherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of .lu- 
dah unto this day:" for neither Saul, David, nor 
Solomon is in a single instance culled king of .lu- 
dah simply. It is true that David is said, in one 
narrative respecting him, to have reigned in Hebron 
seven years and sis months over Judah (2 Sam. v. 
5) before he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-three 
years over all Israel and .hidah ; but he is, notwith- 
standing, never designated by the title King of 
Judah. Before the secession, the designation of 
the kings was that they were kings of Israel (1 
Sam. xiii. 1, xv. 1, xvi. 1; 2 Sam. v. 17, viii. 15; 

1 K. ii. 11, iv. 1, vi. 1, xi. 42). It may safely, 
therefore, be assumed that the book of Samuel 
Kiuld not have existed in its present form at an 
earlier period than the reign of Keiioboam, who as- 
cended the throne b. c. 975. If we go beyond 
this, and endeavor to assert the precise time be- 
tween 975 B. c. and 022 b. c, when it was com- 
posed, all certain indications fail us. The expres- 
sion " unto this day,'' used several times in the 
book (1 Sam. v. 5, vi. 18, xxx. 25; 2 Sam. iv. 3, 
vi. 8), in addition to the use of it in the passage 
already quoted, is too indefinite to prove anything, 
except that tlie writer who employed it li\ed subse- 
quently to the events he descrilied. 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. !)). In both cases it is not cer- 
tain that the writer lived more than eighty years 
after the incidents to wliicli he alludes. In like man- 
ner, the various traditions respecting the manner 
in which Saul first became acquaiTited with David 
(1 Sam. xvi. 14-2-3, xvii. 55-58) — respecting the 
manner of Saul's death (1 Sam. xxxi. 2-0, 8-1-3; 

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 
cr the invention of printing, and when probably 
few could read, thirty or forty years, or e\en 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 period of 353 years within 
which the book may ha\'fe 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 
comparison. They embrace scarcely more than 
the writings of Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, 
!«ud a certain portion of the writings under the title 

'Isaiah." The whole of these writings together 
tan scarcely be estimated as occupying more than 
iixty pages of our Hebrew Bibles, and whatever 


may be their peculiarities of language or style, they 
do not afford materials for a safe inference as to 
which of tlicir authors was likely to have been con- 
temporary with the author of the book of Sanuiel 
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 tiot have existed in its present form earlier 
than the reign of liehoboam. 

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 Havernick {Kiii- 
leitmig in das Alte Tn^taiiU'iit, part ii., p. 145) 
deems it a certain inference that the author lived 
not long after the death of David. But this is a 
very slight ibundation for such an inference, since 
we know nothing of the author's name, or of the 
circumstances mider which he wrote, or of his pre- 
cise ideas respecting what is required of an histo- 
rian. We cannot, theretbre, assert, from the knowl- 
edge of the character of his mind, that bis deeming 
it logically requisite to make a formal statement 
of David's death wiatld 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 wiio finally inserted it in the Canon did 
not transmit it to posterity with the name of any 
particular author, their honesty was involved, not 
in the mere 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, 
there has been a controversy whether the book of 
Samuel is or is not a compilation from pree.xist- 
ing documents; and if this is decided in the af- 
firmative, to what extent the work is a compilation 
It is not mtended to enter fully here into this con- 
tro\ersy, respecting which the reader is referred to 
Dr. L)avidson's Introductmi to the Critic(d Study 
(Did Knowitdye of the Holy Scriptures, 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 mind. It does not admit of nuich reasonable 
doubt that in the book of Samuel there are two 
different accounts (already alluded to) respecting 
Saul's first acquaintance with David, and the cir- 
cumstances of Saul's death — and that yet the 
editor or author of the Iwok did not let his mind 
work upon these two different accounts so far as tc 
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 com|)iler, and not an original his- 
torian. And in rei'erence to the two accounts of 
Saul's death, this is not the less true, even if the 
second accoimt be deemed reconcilable with the first 
by the supposition that the Amalekite had fabri- 
cated the story of his having killed Saul (2 Sam. 


i. 6-10). Althouifh possibly true, this is an un- 
likely supposition, because, as the Amalekite's ob- 
ect in a lie would have been to curry favor with 
David, it would have been natural for him to have 
•brged some story whicli 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 \\hat 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 hefore 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. 22-2-t), 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 'f narratives by 
different writers, such as 1 Sam. vii. i.j- H, 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 
iust;inces 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 enlianeed; 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 *euts de- 
scribed. , 

Suui-ces of' the Buok 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 oidy work actually quoted in this 
book is the book of .lasher; i. e. the book of 
the Upright. Notwithstanding the great learning 
which has been brought to bear on tiiis title by 
numerous commentators [vol. ii. p. 1215], the 
meaning of the title must lie regarded as alisolutely 
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 

« Any Hebrew scholar who will write out the orig- 
inal four lines commencing with "Sun, stand thou 
•till upon Gibeoul" may satisfy himself that they 
belong to a poem. The last line, " Uutil the people 
had avenged themselves UDon their enemies,"' which 
m the A. V. is somewhat heavy, is almost uumistak- 
ibly a line of poetry in the original. In a narrative 
(Uspectiu;; tut Isi'aelites in oro>e 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 fi-om these facts is, that the book 
of Jasher contained some poems. What else it 
may have contained we cannot say, even nega- 
tively. AVithout reference, however, to the book of 
Jasher, the book of Sanniel contains several poetical 
compositions, on each of which a few observations 
mav be offered ; commencing with the poetry of 

(1.) David's Lamentation over Saul and Jona- 
than, called "The Bow." This extremely beautiful 
composition, wliich seems to have been preserved 
through David's having caused it to be taught to 
the eliildren 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 ]«alms 
attriliufed 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 geiniineness 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 unimportai:t 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. 

{(I.) The date of tiie composition is asisigned to 
the day when Da\id had lieen 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. 
Aloreover, 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 I)a\id." 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 ia 

tiiken is used after DHD {iiakam). In simple prow 

"jt3 (min) intervenes, and, lil<e the article, it niaj 
have beeu here omitted tor couciseness. 


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

(6.) In the closing; verse (2 Sam. xxii. 51), Je- 
hovali is spoken of as showing " mercy to his 
anointed, unto David and his seed for evermore." 
Tliese words would be more naturally written of 
David tlian by David. They may, however, be a 
later addition ; as it may be observed that at the 
present day, notwithstanding; tiie safeguard of print- 
ing, the poetical writings of living authors are occa- 
Bionally altered, and it must be added disfigured, 
in printed hynni-books. Still, as far as they tro, 
the words tend to raise a doubt wliether the psalm 
was written by David, as it camiot be proctd tliat 
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 wickeilly 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 lite in tlie matter of Uriah, 
David should have used this language concerning 
himself. Admitting fully that, in consequence of 
his sincere and bititer contrition, " the princely 
heart of innocence " may have been freely bestowed 
upon him, it is difhcult to understand how this 
should have influenced him so lar in his assertions 
respecting his own upriglitness in past times, as to 
make him forget that he bad once been betrayed 
by his passions into adultery and murder. These 
assertions, if made by David himself, would form 
a striking contrast to the tender hunulity and seli- 
mistrust in comiection with the same sulject by 
a great hving genius of spotless character. (See 
♦'Christian Year," Qth Stindny cjler Trinit/j — ad 

(4.) A song, called " last words of David " (2 
bam. xxiii. 2-7). According to the Inscrijjtion, it 
was composed by " David the son of Jesse, the man 
who was raised up on high, the anointed of tlie 
God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel." 
It is suggested by Bleek, and is in itself very prob- 
able, that both the psalm 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 h.aving 
borne a child, after a long period of barrenness, 
which had caused her to be looked down upon l)y 
.he other wife of her husband. But, deducting a 
general allusion, in verse 5, to the barren having; 
liorne 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 (vv. 1,4,10). Indeed, Tbenius does not 
lesitate to conjecture that it was written by David 


after he had slain Goliath, and the Philistines had 
been defeated in a great battle (Fxei/ctUclies Fland- 
buc/i, p. 8). There is no historical warrant for 
this supposition; but the song is certaiidy more 
appropriate to the victory of Da\id o\er tioliath, 
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 
couunand 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 prefeiable; as in the alternative of mere 
oral traditions it would have been supereminently 
unnatural even for a compiler to record tliera 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 Sanuiel naturally 
suggest the idea that 'hey were founded on con- 
temporary documents or a peculiarly trustworthy 
tradition. This applies specially to the account 
of the combat lietween David and Goliath, which 
has been the delight of successive generations, 
wliich charms equally in different ways the old and 
the young, the learned and the illiterate, and which 
tempts us to deem it certain that the account must 
liave proceeded from .in eye-witness. On the other 
hand, it is to be remembered that vivichiess of 
description often dei)ends more on the discerning 
faculties of the narrator than on mere liodily 
presence. "It is the mind that sees," sn that 200 
years after the meeting of tlie Long I'arliament a 
powerful imaginative writer sliall portray Cromwell 
more vividly than Ludlow, a contemporary who 
knew him and conversed with him. Moreover, 
Livy has described events of early Itoman history 
which educated men regard in their details as 
imaginary; and Defoe, Swift, and the authors of 
Tlie Arabian Niyhts have described events which 
all men admit to Ije imaginary, vvitli 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 contenqiorary, or on a 
tradition entitled to any peculiar credit. Perhaps 
tiie two conjectures respecting the composition of 
the book of Samuel which are most entitled tf 
consideration are — 1st. That the list which it 
contains of officers or public functionaries under 
David is tlie result of contemporary registration ; 
and ^dly. That the book of Sanniel 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 paa- 
sa'j;es as 2 Sam viii. 10-18, and xx. 23-20, in 
reirai'd to which one fuct may lie mentioned. It 
has already been stated [IviNc;, vol. " p. l51iJil 



that under the kint^s there existed an officer 
sailed Recorder, Eemenibraiicer, or Chronicler; in 
Hebrew, muzkir. Now it can scarcely be a mere 
accidental coincidence that such an officer is men- 
tioned for tlie first time in David's reign, and tliat 
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 undou1)tedly 
contributed towards the formation of the uncritical 
opinion that the book of Samuel was the jiroduc- 
tion of the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. 
This opinion is unsupported by external evidence, 
and is contrary to internal evidence: but it is liy 
no means improbable that some writers among tlie 
sons of the prophets recorded the actions of those 
prophets. This would be peculiarly prolialile 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 
coml)ined in such adniiralile 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 tor the exclusion of the 
Emperor Tbeodosius from the church at Milan after 
the massacre at Thessalonica. It may be added, 
that the following circumstances are in accordance 
with the supposition that the compiler of the book 
of Samuel was connected with the schools of the 
prophets. The designation of .lehovah as the 
" Lord of Hosts," or (lod 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 Ijook of Kings it occurs only seven times; and 
in tlie 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, 
20.) 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 projihetical 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 

« It is worthy of note that the prophet Ezekiel never the expression " Lord of Hosts." On the other 
hand, there is no mention of the Levites in the undis- 
puted writings of Isaiah 

* Tacitus I'ecords it as a distinguishing custom of 
■Jie Jews, " corpora condere quaui cremare, ex more 
lEgyptio " {Hist. V. 5). And it is certain that, in later 
Vnies, they buried dead bodies, and did not hurn 
.hem ; though, notwithstanding tlie instance in Gen. 

2. they did not, strictly speaking, enibiilui them, 
'Ke the Egyptians. And though it may be suspected, 


Samuel in this respect is even more striking than 
their difiference in the use of the expression '• Lord 
of Hosts;"" though in a reverse proportion. In 
the whole book of Samuel 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 
tiie life of David is treated in the two histories. A 
comparison of the two works tends to throw light 
on the state of the Hebrew mind at the time when 
the book of Samuel was written, compared with 
the ideas prevalent among the Jews some hundred 
years later, at the time of the compilation of the 
Chronicles. Some passages correspond almost pre- 
cise! v word for word; others agree, with slight but 
significant alterations. In some cases there are 
striking omissions; in others there are no less re- 
markalile additions. Without attempting to ex- 
liaust the subject, some of tlie diflerences between 
the two histories will be now briefly pointed out; 
though at the same time it is to be l)orne 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 .labesh Gilead took the iiody of Saul and the 
bodies of his sons from the wall of Betli-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 bones of Saul and his 
sons under tlie 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 Saiyuel it is expressly stated (1 Sam. xxviii. 6) 
that Saul luid inquired of Jehovah before be con- 
sulted the witch of Kndor, 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 
ivar between David and Ishbosheth the son of Saul, 
nor of Aimer's changing sides, nor his assassina- 
tion by Joab, nor of the assassination of Ish- 
bosheth by liechab and Baanah (2 Sam. ii. 8-32, 
iii., iv. ). 

it cannot be proved, that they ever bui-ned their deaa 
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. y 

?)~1D, The burning for Asa (2 Chr. xvi. 14) is dif 

fei-ent from the burning of his body. Cooipare Jer 
.Nxxiv. 5; 2 Chr. x.\i. 19, 20; Joseph. AiU. xv. 3, § 4 
De BtU. JuU. i. 33, § 9. 


4. li'avid's adultery with Hath-sheba, the ex- 
posure of Uriah to certain death by David's orders, 
the solemn rebuke of Nathan, and the penitence of 
David, are all passed over in aosolute silence in the 
'Jhronicles (2 Sam. xi., xii. l-2o). 

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, genemllv, 
to have been "all the people that were with him," 
and '' all the house of Israel " are said to have 
pla3ed before Jehovah on the occasion with all 
manner of musical instruments. In the corre- 
eponding passage of the Chronicles (1 Chr. siii. 
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 ]5reparations which are made 
for the reception of the Ark of the Covenant at 
Jerusalem, nothing is said of the Levites in Sam- 
uel; whereas in the Chronicles David is introduced 
as saying that none ought to carry the Ark of 
God but the Levites; the special numbers of the 
Levites and of the children of Aaron are there 
given; and names of Levites are specified as hav- 
ing been appointed singers and players on musical 
instruments in connection with the Ark (1 Chr. 
XV., xvi. 1-6). 

6. The incident 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 jNIichal on David's conduct, David's 
answer, and Michal's punishment, are fully set 
forth in Samuel (2 Sam. vi 14-2-J); 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 Ps. 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 (I Chr. 
xvi. 35) appears to have been written at the time 
of the Captivity. 

7. It is stated in Samuel that David in his con- 
quest of JNIoab put to deatii two thirds eitiier of 
tiie 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 Saui- 
uel, that in the A. V. there is no difference in the 
translation of the two texts, " And he smote Moab; 
and the IMoabites 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 

n * Th. Parker (De Wette, Introd. to the O. T. ii. 
263) speaks of " an amusing mistake " in 2 Sam. 
t.xlii. 21, as compared with 1 Chr. xi. 23. But there 
p no foundation for this, unless it be his own .lingular 
'endering, "a respectJible man," where the Hebrew is 

•Imply nM"1?3 tt'^S, " a man of appearance '" (= 
nirahilis visit}, iu the A. V. "a goodly man,'' because 
pret-.isely as defined in 1 Chr. xi. 2;^, he was very tall, 
' a man of stit ire, five cubits high,-' etc. 11. 


Elhanan the son of Jaare oregim, a Bethlehemite 
(in the original Beit hnl^lnclnni), slew Goliath the 
Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's 
beam." In the parallel passage in tiie Chronicles 
(1 Chr. XX. 5) it is stated that "Elhanan the son 
of Jair slew l.achmi the brother of Goliath the 
Gittite." Thus Lacbmi, which in the former case 
is merely part of an adjective descriljing 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- 
2JAN, i. 69G 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, 'i'his last is the first and the 
only instance in which the name of Satan is intro- 
duced into any historical book of the Old Testa- 
ment. In the Pentateuch Jehovah himself ia 
represented as hardening Pharaoli's heart (Ex. vii. 
13), as in this passage of Samuel He is said to have 
incited David to give orders for a census." 

10. In the incidents connected with the three 
days' pestilence upon Israel on account of the 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 Jeliovah, that he stood 
between tiie earth and the heaven, having a drawn 
sword in his hand stretched over Jerusalem ; that 
afterwards Jehovah commanded the an^el, and 
that the angel put up again his sword into its 
sheath 6 (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 tliat when 
David (ver. 26) had built an altar to Jehovah, and 
offered burnt-offerings to Him, Jehovah answered 
him from heaven liy 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 Sam. 
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 Gilieonites had for- 
merly received from Saul. This Ijarliarous act of 
suiiei-stition, which is not said to have lieeu com- 
nvanded 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 banefid example of the Piitenicians, wiio 
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 wheu the book of Chronicles was com- 

h The statue of the arcliangel Michael on the top 
of the mausoleum of Hadrian at Koine is iu accordance 
with the same idea. In a procession to St. Peter's, 
during a pestilence, Gregory the Great saw the arch- 
angel iu a vision, as he is supposed to be represented 
in the statue. It is owing to this that the fortre8.s 
subsequently had the name of the Castle of St. .\n- 
gelo. See Murray's Handbook for Rome p. 67, 6th 
ed. 1862. 


It only remains to add, that in the numerous I 
instances wherein there is a close verbal agreement ! 
between passages in Samuel and in the Chronicles, 
the sound conclusion seems to be that the Chroni- 
cles were co])ied from Samuel, and not that both 
were copied I'rom 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 Koman history al- 
most precisely in the words of Livy, no critic would 
hesitate to say that all such narratives were copied 
from Livy. It would be regarded as a very im- 
probable hypothe-iis that they were copied from 
documents to which I^i.y and the later historian 
had equal access, e£,jecially 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 ali- 
Bence 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 Sanmel. 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- 
Bii, Annotatt. in Locos d/JJic. Jos., Jml., et Sam. ; 
Victorini Strigelii, Coiaiii. In Libr. Sam., ' Rvg., 
et FaraUj)})., Lips. 1591, fol. : Gasp. Sanctii, 
Comm. in JV. Lib. Reij. et Paralij>j)., 1624, fol.; 
Hensler, Erlaiiterutujtn cles /. B. Satn. u. d. Sa- 
lom. Denhsprilche, Hamburg, 1795. The best 
modevn Conmientary seems to be that of Thenius, 
Exegetisches Ilandbuch, Leipzig, 1842. In this 
work there is an excellent Introduction, and an 
interesting detailed comparison of the Hebrew text 
in the Bible with the 'J'ranslation of the LXX. 
There are no Commentaries on Samuel in Kosen- 
niUUer'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, Hiivernick, 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 Einkitung in dus 
AUe Ttstament, Berlin, 18G0, pp. 355-3G8; Sta- 
helin's Specielle Einleitung in die Kanunisclien 
Backer des Alten Testaments, Elberfeld, 1862, pp. 
83-105; Davidson's Introduction to the Old Ti-gta- 
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 teclniical rather 
than a practical character. The same Hebrew word 
ifi indeed rendered by different terms in English, 
out only in order to express more clearly the dif- 
"erent senses in which the Hebrew word must nec- 
issarily be understood. " The history of David " 
•rhich is written somewhere, must of course take 
Kisttjry in the sense of biography ; while " the his- 


tory of Samuel," in which it is written, must bt 
the written record. The passage certainly assorts 
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) havin<; been writ- 
ten of the same events when one fi'om 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 weisiht 
than is there allowed to them; especially the argu- 
ment from the language does not require to be so 
mucli qualified. The instances of pure Hebrew cited 
as belonging to the time of the Captivity, with the 
single exception of I's. cxxxvii. (whicii 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 
offset 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 
llehoboam (b. c. 975), will not sustain the infer- 
ence. Such a clause might be a marginal note, 
crept into the text; but this supposition is unnec- 
essary. As Judah was the leading tribe, it is not 
unlikely that kings of Judali was sometinjes used 
instead of lyings of Israel to designate the mon- 
archs, even before the secession. The contrary is 
asserted above: " Before the secession, tlie designa- 
tion of the kings was that they were kings of Is- 
rael." But not one of the nine refierences given 
happens to contain the exact expression. They are 
all " king over Israel," or '' king ovkh 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 (I 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 (.losh. xv. 31), and subsequently allotted 
out of his territory to Simeon (xix. 5). When it 
came back from the I'hilistines 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 S'>n, of course a Beiijamite, reicned over 
" all Israe " (1 Sam. ii. 9), while David reigned 
only over Judah; during five more years Davi^ 
continued to reign o\ er J udah 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 reiijn to speak of 
Ziklag as pertaining " 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 twenty years after the 

The " various traditions respecting the manner 
in which Saul first became acquainted with Da\id 
(1 Sam. xvi. 14-23, xvii. 55-58), respecting the 
manner of Saul's death (1 Sam. xxxi. 2-G, 8-13, 
2 Sam. i. 2-12)," are easily shown to be quite har- 
monious. It is evident that the passage in 1 Sam. 
svi. 18-23 is chronologically later than that in 
xvii. 55-58 (or rather, xvii. 55-xviii. 9); for in the 
latter David is represented as an unknown stripling, 
while in die former (ver. 38) he is " a mighty val- 
iant raati, 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, ho\ve\'er, the former passatre 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 assiuned 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 objeot 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 
Blight sup]5ort in the mention of Saul's having been 
filled with the spirit of prophecy at the only times 
wlien he was brought into close contact with the 
company of the prophets, and of his having twice 
fallen into the jtower of David. There is nothing 
surprising in the fact that both these events sliould 
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 regard them as sepnrate 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 aliridgment at all, must have 
been an authorized abridgment, since none otiier 
would have been likely to supplant the original. 

In comparing the narrative of Samuel with tliat 
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 
imong those " undesigned coincidences " which .so 
Deautifully illustrate the trustworthiness of the 
Scripture narratives. In Chronicles no mer.tion is 
.iiade of the burning of the bodies of Saul and his 
«)ns recorded by Samuel; yet the fact is recog- 
Bized in saying that tlie men of Jabesh Gilead 



buried — not their bodies, but only — their bones. 
In the second instance both accounts agree iu the 
fact, although tliere is a superficial verbal oppo.?i- 
tion in the manner of stating it. Both assert that 
Saul did not obtain counsel of the Lord, Sanniel 
only mentioning that he vainly attempted to do .so. 
The fact is thus expressed by S.amuel: he inquired, 
but obtained no answer because of his wicked heart, 
which led him into the further sin of inquiring of 
the witch of Endor; the same fact is more liriefly 
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. 
Jlost of the other instances are merely the fuller 
relation of events by one or other of the writers, 
showing that the author of Cliroiiicles 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 .leiiovah. 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 l)roken the ancient treaty with 
the Gilieonites, 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. 'I'hese the\' hung " up unto the 
Lord in Gilieah," not with the remotest idea of a 
sacrifice to Him; but as a pnldic 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 
liy the sin and cruelty of Saul rankling in the 
minds of the Gibeonites. F. G. 

* Recent Literature. — On the books of Samuel, 
we may also refer to Palfrey's Lect. on the Jewish 
Scripl'ures,u. 236-300, iii. 1-43 (Boston, 1840-52); Snimielis, Biiclier, in Herzoii'sliedl- 
Kncyid. xiii. 400-412 (Gotha, 18G0); and Kueneii, 
///.•;/. crit. </es liv)-es de V Aiicien Test., i. 374-399, 
567-580 (Paris, 1866); — Ew.ald, Gesch.des Vvlkes 
Israel, 3^ Ausg., Bde. ii., iii.; and Stanley, fJist. of 
llie Jewish C/iurcli, vols, i., ii. The latest commen- 
taries are by Keil, Die Biiclier S((muels, Leipz. 
1864 (Theil ii. Bd. ii. of the Bil>L Comm. by Keil 
and Delitzscii), Eng. trans. Ediub. 1866 (Clark's 
Far. Theol. Lihr.), and \Vordsworth, Holy Bible, 
witli Notes and Introductions, vol. ii. pt. ii. (Lond. 
1806). A new edition of Thenius's commentary 
{Kurzyef. exeg. llaiidh. iv. ) was published in 1864. 
Other works illustrating these books are referred to 
under* Chi{(jnicu;s and Kings. A. 

SANABAS'SAR (Sa^uarairo-apos; Alex. 2a- 

j/apaaaapos '■ 



(1 Esdr. ii. 12, 15; conip. Ezr. i. 8, 11). 

SANABAS'SARUS {2a0avd(T<raiJos: Alex. 
"Sava^daaapos' Salnianasai-us). Suksiibazzar 
(1 Esdr. vi. 18, 20; comp. Ezr. v. 14, 16). 

SAN'ASIB CSavaal^: [Vat. 2ai/a/3eis; Aid. 
2ai/ao-6i3;] Alex. Avaffei0: LH"sil,). The sons 
of .leddu, the son of Jesus, are reckoned "among 
tlie sons of Sanasib," as priests whc returned with 
Zorobabel (1 Esdr. v. 24). 

SANBAL'LAT (12^530 : S.ava&aWar; 
[F.4.. 2ai'o/8aAaT, etc. :] Sanabalhtt). Of u'lcer- 
taiu etymology ; according to Gesenius after Vod 


Bohlen, meaning in Sanskrit " giving strength to 
the army," but according to Fiirst " a chestnut 
tree." A JMoabite of Horotiaiin, as appears by his 
designation " Sanballat the Horonite " (Neh. ii. 
10, 19, xiii. 28). All that we know of liim from 
Scripture is that he had apparently some civil or 
military command in Samaria, in the service of 
Artaxerxes (Neh. iv. 2), and that, from the mo- 
ment of Nehemiah's arrival in Jud»a, he set him- 
Belf 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 Nehejiiah, Book of, and to, 
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 i)art 
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 fmther widened the breach between 
him and Sanballat, and between the two parties 
in the Jewish state. Here, however, the Scriptural 
narrative 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 Xerxes. Josephus, 
after interposing the whole reign of Artaxerxes 
Longimanus between the death of Nehemiah and 
the transactions in which Sanballat took part, and 
utterly ignoring the very existence of IJarius Nothus, 
Artaxerxes Mnemon, Ochus, etc., jumps at once to 
the reign of " Darius the last king," and tells us 
{Ant. xi. 7, § 2) that Sanballat was his officer in 
Samaria, that he was a Cuthean, i. e. a Samaritan, 
by birth, and that he gave his daughter Nicaso in 
marriage to 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 
thereu[X)n promised to use his influence with king 
Darius, not only to give him Sanballafs govern- 
ment, but to sanction the building of a rival temple 
on Mount Gerizim, of which Jlanasseh should be 
the hii;h-priest. Manasseh on this agreed to retain 
his wife and join Sanballafs 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, i.nd re- 
nounced his allegiance to Darius {Ant. xi. 8, § 4). 
Being favorably received by the conqueror, he took 
the opportunity of speaking to him in behalf vi 
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 temjile 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 
jiernianent 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 ditterent person 
from the Sanliallat of Nehemiah, who flourished 
fully one huiidred 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. 4GG, 288, 290), and its disagreement with what 
Eusebius tells of the relations of xMexander with 
Samaria" {Chrun. Can. lib. post. p. 340), and re- 
member how apt Josephus is to follow any narra- 
tive, no matter how anachronistic and inconsistent 
wit!) Scripture, we shall have no difficulty in con- 
cluding that his account of Sanballat is not histor- 
ical. It is doubtless taken ironi 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 Persian empire 
for the epoch, and Sanballat for the ideal instru- 
ment, of the consolidation of the Samaritan Church 
and the erection of the temple on Gerizim. To lior- 
row events from some Scripture narrati\e and intro- 
duce some Scriptural personage, without any regard 
to chronology or other propriety, was the regular 
method of such apocryphal l)Ooks. See 1 Esdras, 
apocryphal Esther, 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 Sanliallat's 
intercourse with both Darius Codonianus and Alex- 
ander the Great, and yet to transplant it, as Pri- 
deaux does, to the time of Darius Nothus (n. c. 
409), seems scarcely compatible with sound criti- 
cism. For a further discussion of this subject, see 
the article Nehemiah, Book ok, iii. 2096; Pri- 
deaux, Connect, i. 3Qb-'396; Geneiil. of our Lord, 
p. 32-3, &c. ; Mills Vindic. of our Lord's Geneal. 
p. 165; Hales' Analijs. ii. 534. A. C. H. 

* SANCTUARY. [Tabernacle ; Tem- 

SANDAL (b^2 : {nr6^7]fia, ffav5d\iov). The 

a He says that Alexander appointed Andromachus 
governor of Judsea and the neighboring districts ; that 
the Samaritans murdered him ; and that Alexander on 
his return took Samaria in revenge, and settled a col- 
i>ny of Macedonians in it, and the inhabitants of Sa- 
ouiria retired to Sichem. 

b Such <■ time, e- £., as when the book of Ecclesias- 

ticus was written, in which we read (ch. 1. 25, 26) 
" 'I'Uere be two manner of nations which mine heart 
abhorreth, and the third is no nation : they that sit 
upon the mountaui of Samaria, and they that dwel 
among the Philistines, an^ that foolish people that 
dwell in Sichem." 


iandal appears to have been the article ordinarily 
used by the Hebrews for protecting the feet. It 
consisted simply of a sole attached to the foot by 
thongs. The Hebrew term na'al " implies such an 
article, its proper sense being that of confining or 
shutting in the foot with thongs: we have also 

express notice of the thong * (Tflltt^: Ifxas- A.V. 
"shoe-latchet") in several passages (Gen. xiv. 2-3 ; 
Is. V. 27; Mark i. 7). The Greek term virdSriixa 
properly applies to the sandal exclusively, as it 
means what is bound undvr the foot; but no stress 
can be laid on the use of the term by the Alexa-.i- 
drine writers, as it was applied to any covering of 
the foot, even to the military c(di(j(i of the Homans 
(•loseph. B. J. vi. 1, § 8). A similar observation 
applies to aav^aMov, which is used in a general, 
and not in its strictly classical sense, and was 
adopted in a Hebraized form by the Talniudists. 
We have no description of the sandal in the Bible 
itself, but the deficiency can be supplied from col- 
lateral soiii-ces. Thus we learn from the Talraud- 
ists that the materials employed in the construction 
of the sole were either leather, felt, cloth, or wood 
(Mishn. Jebiini. 12, §§ 1, 2), and that it was occa- 



Egyptian SandaU. 

gionally shod with iron {Sabh. 6, § 2). In F.gypt 
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 (Layard, 
Nh'i. ii. 323, 32-f). In Egyi^t the "sandals "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 sometiuies 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 {Je/jum. 12, § 1). 
Great attention was paid by the ladies to their san- 
dals; they were made of the skin of an animal 
named tachash (Ez. xvi. 10), whether a hyena or 
a seal (A.V. " badger") is doubtful: the skins of 
a fish (a species of Halicore) are used for this pur- 

pose in the peninsula of Sinai (Robinson, Bibl. Res. 
i. 110). The thongs were handsomely embroidered 
(Cant. vii. 1; Jud. x. 4, xvi. 9), as were tliose 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 (.\m. viii. 
6), and both the sandal and the thong or shoe- 
latchet were so cheap and connnon. that they ]iassed 
into a proverb for the most insignilicant thing (tien. 

a In the A. V. this term is invaritibly rendered 
" shoes." There is, however, little reason to think 
that the Jews really wore shoes, and the expres.sions 
vhich Carpzov (Apparat. pp. 781, 782) quotes to prove 
that they did — (namely, " put tlie blood of war in 
his shoes," 1 K. ii. 6 ; " 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 
tlimis: of the sandal, the second that men should cross 
the river on foot instead of in boats. The shoes found 
in E^vpt probably belonged to Greeks (AVilkiuson, ii. 

Assyrian Sandals. (From Layard, ii. 234.) 

xiv. 23; Ecclus. xlvi. 19). They were not, how- 
ever, worn at all periods; they were dispensed with 
in-doors, and were only put on by persons al)out to 
undertake some business away from their homes; 
such as a military expedition (Is. v. 27 ; Eph. vi. 
1.5), 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 olijected 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 lial)le to be soon worn out (.losh. 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, G, and in the 
exception specially made in reference to the Pascha] 
feast (Ex. xii. 11): the same custom must have 
prevailed where\'er reclining at meals was practiced 
(comp. Plato, Sympis. 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 (F.x. iii. 5) and to 
.Joshua in the presence of the angel (.Josh. v. 1.5). 
In deference to these injunctions the priests are 
said to have conducted their ministrations in the 
Temple liarefoot (Theodoret, ad F.x. iii. qufest. 7), 
and the Tahnudists even forbade any person to pass 
through the Tenjple with shoes on (Mishn. Berack. 
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 Home (Piiident. Peris. 
1.54), 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 applied to the removal of the shoe 
(rbn, Deut. XXV. 10 ; Is. XX. 2 ; and T^W, Ruth 

iv. 7) imply that the thongs were either so nunirirou? 
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 ' vtri), and conveys the notion of TJolenoe 
\ _ y/i 

and haste. 



to SiJ. Ital. iii. 28. In modern times we may com 
pare the similar practice of the Mohammedans of 
Palestine before entering a mosque (liohinson's 
Rtsenrclies, ii. 36), and particularly before enternig 
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 (Kobinson, ii. 278). The practice 
of the modern Egyptians, who take off their slioes 
before stepping on to the carpeted Item'm, appears 
to be dictated by a feeling of reverence rather than 
cleanliness, that spot being devoted to prayer (Lane, 
i. 3.5). 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 Kiidi- 
pedalia from this feature (TertuU. A/ioL 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. 2.3). The expression in Ps. Ix. 8, cviii. 
9, " liver Edoni will I cast out my shoe," evidently 
signifies the subjection of that country, but the 
exact ijoiiit 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 
syn]bolic action of casting the shoe, or aijain, Edom 
may be regarded in the still more suliordinate posi- 
tion of a shelf on whicii 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 signiticancy was attached to 
the act in connection with the repudiation of a Le- 
virate marriage (Deut. 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, § G). W. L. B. 

SAN'HEDRIM (accurately Sanhedrin, 

^"*'^in3P, formed from (rvveSfiiov- the attempts 
of the Kabbins to find a Hebrew etymology are 
idle; Buxtorf, Lex. C/iald. s. v.), called also in the 
Talmud the great Srmhedrin, the supreme council 
of the Jewish people in the time of Christ and 

earlier. In the Mishna it is also styled ^*'"^ n"^3, 

Beth Din, "bouse of judgment." 

1. The mi(jin 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 Yorstius, who took the ground (De Syn- 
hedriis,^^ 2.5-40) that the alleged identity between 
the assembly of seventy elders mentioned in Nimi. 
d. 16, 17, and the Sanhedrim which existed in 
the later period of the Jewish commonwealth, was 
simply a conjecture of the Rabliins, and that there 
are no traces of such a triliunal in Deut. xvii. 8, 
10, nor in the age of Joshua and the Judi^es, nor 
during the reign of the kings, it has been gener- 


ally admitted that the tribunal established bj 
Moses was probably temporary, and did not con- 
tinue to exist after the Israelites had entered Pal- 
estine (Winer, Realworlerb. art. " Synedrium "). 

In the lack of definite historical inforujation 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 Macedoniee pertinebat, senatores, quos syner 
drvs vocant, legendos esse, quorum consilio respub- 
lica administi-aretur." 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 yepovaia ruv '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 exi.stcnce. On these grounds 
the opinion of Yorstius, 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 Seleucidaj or of the Hasmonean 

In the silence of Philo, Josephus, and the Jlishna, 
respecting the constitution of the Sanhedrim, we 
are obliged to depend upon the few incidental no- 
tices in the New Testament. Erom these we gather 
that it consisted of apxt^p^'ts. chief priests, or tl>e 
heads of the twenty-four classes into which the 
priests were divided (including probably those who 
had been high-priests), Trpta-fivTepoi, elders, men of 
age and experience, and ypa/jL/xarfTi, 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 {Sanliedr. i. 6): "the great Sanhe- 
drim consisted of seventj'-one judges. How is this 
proved? Erom Num. xi. 16, where it is said, 
' gather unto me seventy men of the elders of 
Israel.' To these add Jloses, and we have seventy- 
one. Nevertheless R. Judah says there were 
seventy." The same diflTerence 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. 20), 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. IG in respect to th« 
number of members of which the latt«r Ivody con- 
sisted, has no force, a'jd w* \re left, as Keii niaii> 


ttins {Archaologie, ii. § 259), without any certain 
information on the point. 

The president of this body was styled S*tt"'3 
N<isi, and, according to Mainionides 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 

y^^ Pi^H. :2N, "father of the house of jadg- 
nient," sat at the right hand of the pre5i<lent. 
Some writers speak of a second \ice-president, styled 

D3n, " wise," but this is not sufficiently con- 
firmed (see Selden, De Synedr. p. 156 fF.). The 
Babylonian Gemara states that there were two 
scribes, one of whom registered the votes fi)r ac- 
quittal, the other those for condemnation. In Matt. 
xxvi. 58; Mark xiv. 5i, &c., the hctors or attend- 
ants of the Sanhedrim are referred to under the 
name of virriptTat- While in session the .*^anhe- 
drim sat in the form of a half-circle {Gem. IJieros. 
Const, vii. nd Sunhedr. i.), with all which agrees 
the statement of Mainionides (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 iloses. 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 judgment.' 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 m 

■ 3. The place in which the sessions of the San- 
hedrim Vi'ere ordinarily held was, according to the 

Talmud, a hall called n''-T5, Gazzi/Ii {Snnliedr.x.), 
supposed by Liglitfoot ( \Vi>rks, 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 (iSIatt. xxvi. 3). Forty 
years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and con- 
sequently while the Saviour was teaching in Pales- 
tine, the sessions of the Sardiedrim were removed 
from the hall Gazzith to a somewhat greater dis- 
tance from the Temple building, although still on 
JMt. Moriah [Abod. Zurn, i. Gem. Babyl. ad San- 
liedr. v.). After several other ch.inges, its seat was 
finally established at Til)erias (Lightfoot, Works, 
ii. 365 ). 

As a judicial body the Sanhedrim constituted a 
supreme court, to which belonged in the first 
instance the trial of a trilje fallen into idolatry, 
false prophets, and the high-priest (Mishna, San- 
hedr. i.); also the other priests {Miildoth, v.). 
As sTi administrative council it determined other 
important matters. Jesus was arraigned before 
this body as a false projihet (.Tohn xi. 47), and 
Peter, .!ohn, Stephen, and Paul as teachers of 
error and decei\ers of the people. From Acts ix. 
2 it appears that the Sanhedrim e.Kercised a degree 
of authority beyond the limits of Palestine. Ac- 
cording to the Jerusalem Gemara (quoted \<\ 
«elden, lib. ii. c. 15, 11), the power of hillicting 
capital punishment was taken away from this tri- 
buTial forty years before the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem. With this agrees the answer of the .lews to 
Pilate (John xviii. 31), " It is not lawful for us to 


put any man to death." Be.yond 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 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 (Winer, Realwb. art. " Syne- 
drium "). 

The Talmud also mentions a lesser Sanhedrim 
of tweiitj-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 
Synedriis et Prcefecturis Juridicis veterum E/jrc3- 
nrum, Lond. 1650, Amst. 1679, 4to. It exhibits 
iunnense learning, but introduces much irrelevant 
matter, and is written in a heavy and unattractive 
style. The monographs of Vorstius and Witsiua, 
contained in Ugolini's Thesaurus, vol. xxv., are 
able and judicious. The same volume of Ugolini 
contains also the Jerusalem and Baljylonian Ge- 
maras, along with the ]Mishna on the Sanhedrim, 
with which may be compared Duo TiluU Tahnudici 
Sanhedrin et Maccoth, ed. Jo. Coch, .A.mst. 1629, 
4to, and Mainionides, Be Sanhedriis et Poenis, 
ed. Honting. Amst. 1695, 4to. Hartmann, Die 
Wrbinilun;/ des Alien Testaments init dem Neuen, 
Hanib. 1831, 8vo, is worthy of consultation, and 
for a compressed exhibition of the subject, Winer, 
Realwb., and Keil, Archceologie. G. E. D. 

SANSAN'NAH (HSP^p [palm-branch,Gm,, 
Fiirst]: 'S.iQivvd.K\ Alex, iavaauua.: Sensenna). 
One of the towns in the south district of Judah, 
named in Josh. xv. 31 only. The towns of this 
district are not distributed into small groups, like 
those of the highlands or the Shefelah ; and as 
only very few of them have been yet identified, we 
have nothing to guide us to the position of San- 
sannah. ft can hardly have had any connection 
with Kikjath-San.nah (Kiijath-Sepher, or De- 
bir), wliich 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 
{Hwb. ii. 88), who derives it from a root which 
signifies " writing." ■ The two propositions are 
l)robabIy 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 Beth-marcaboth and Ilazar-susim, or 
-susah, occupy in the two last the place of Mad- 
niannah and Sansannah respectively in the first. 
In like manner Shilhim is exchanged for Sharuben 
and Shaaraim. It is difficult to believe tliat tnese 
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 



tokens of tlie trade in chariots and liorses whicli 
arose in Solomon's time; but, if so, how conies it 
that the new names bear so close a resemblance in 
form to the old ones ? G. 

SAPH (HP [threshold, dish, Ges.]; 2€>; 
Alex. 2e(^€: Soph). One of the sons of the giant 
{'Parpd: Ariiphn) slain by Sibbechai the Husha- 
thite in the battle against the Philistines at Uo\> 
or Gaza (2 Sara. xxi. 18). In 1 Clir. xx. 4 he is 
called SiPPAi. The title of Ps. cxliii. in tiie 
Peshito Syriac is, "Of David: when he slew 
Asaph (Saph) the brother of Giilyad (Goliath), 
and thanksgiving for that he had conquered." 

SA'PHAT(2a(^c(T: om. in theVulg.). She- 
PHATiAH 2 (1 Ksdr. V. 9j comp. Ezr. ii. 4). 

SAPHATFAS (2a<?)aTiaj; [Vat. 2o<^OTiay:] 
Saph(Uius). Shephatiah 2 (1 Esdr. viii. 34; 
somp. Ezr. viii. 8). 

SA'PHETH (^.acpvi; [Vat. 2a<^u6i: Aid. 
HacpeS:] Alex. 'S.atpvQi'- Sejjhegi). Shephatiah 
(1 Esdr. V. 33; comp. Ezr. ii. 57). 

SA'PHIR (T^Stt?, [i. e. Shaphir,/a(/-, beau- 
tiful]: Ka\a}s' pulchra, but in Jerome's Com- 
ment. Snpiiir). One of the villages addressed liy 
the prophet Micah (i. 11), but not elsewhere men- 
tioned. By Eu.sebius and Jeronje (Onoinnst. 
"Saphir") it is described as " in the mountain 
district between Eleutheropohs and Ascalon." In 
this direction a village called es-SdwaJir still exists 
(or rather three with that name, two with affixes), 
possibly the representative of the ancient Sajihir 
(Bob. Bibl. Jits. ii. 34 note ; Van de Velde, S/jr. 
^ Pal. p. 159). Es-Saicafir 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. 
TobJer prefers a village called Saber, close to ^50- 
wcifir, containing a copious and apparently very an- 
cient well (3/te WanderwKj, p. 47). In one impor- 
tant respect, however, the position of neither of 
these agrees with the notice of the Unomasticon, 
since it is not near the mountains, but on the open 
plain of the Shefelidi. But as Beit-J ibrin, the 
ancient Eleiitberopolis, 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 Sn- 
lodjir (p. 116), suggests as the most feasible iden- 
tification the village of Snjiriyeh, 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 Beit-.J ibrin, 
and in addition, that Safiriijeh is in clear contra- 
diction to the notice of Eusebius and Jerome. 


SAPPHI'RA (2aTr4)6ipij = either sapphire, 
from (xaircpeipos, or btauliful, from the Syriac 

S^^Cti?). The wife of Ananias, and the partici- 
pator both in his guilt and in his punishment 
(Acts v. 1-10). The interval of three hours that 
elapsed between the two deaths, Sappbira'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 cha! • 
acter of the whole transaction. The history cl 
Sapphira's death thus supplements that of Ananias, 
which might otherwise have been attril)uted tc 
natural causes. W. L. B. 

SAPPHIRE CT^Qp, snpplr: (rin^eipos 
s"pphirus). 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 liy 
Moses and the Elders with " a paved work of a 
sajipir stone, and as it were the body of heaven in 
its clearness" (comp. Ez. i. 26). The sapjiir was 
the second stone in the second row of the high- 
priest's breastplate {Kx. 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 iden- 
tity of name between our sapphire and the traTrtpei- 
pos and sapphirus of the Greeks and Komans, it is 
generally agreed that the s'l/iphiriis of the ancients 
was not our gem of that name, namely, the azure 
or indigo-lilue, crystalline variety of Corundum, but 
our lapis-l'(zuli {ultra-marine); this point may 
be regarded as established, for Pliny (//. N. xxxvii. 
9) thus speaks of the sapphirus: " It is refulgent 
with sjwts of gold, of an a7ure 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 ; 
th« "crystalline particles " of Pliny are crystals of 
iron pyrites, which often occur with this mineral. 
It is, however, not so certain that the sappir of 
tfie Hebrew Bihle is identical with the lapis-lazuli; 
for the Scriptural requirements demand transpar- 
ency, great value, and good material for the en- 
graver's art, all of which combined characters the 
lapis-lazuli does not possess in any great degree. 
JMr. King {Antique Gems, p. 44) says that intagli 
and camei of Koman times are frequent in the 
material, but rarely any works of much merit. 
Again, the sappir was certainly jiellucid, '• sane 
apud Judseos," says Braun {De Vest. iSac. p. G80, ed. 
1680), " saphiros pellucidas notas fuisse nianifestis- 
simum est, adeo etiam ut pelluciilum illorum phi- 

losophis dicatur T^DD, saphir.'''' Beckmann 
{Wist, of Invent, i. 472) is of opinion that the 
sappir of the Hebrews is the same as the lapis- 
lazuli'; Ilosenmiiller and Braun agree in favor of 
its lieing our sapphire or precious Corundum. We 
are inclined to adopt this latter opinion, but are 
unable to come to any satisfactory conclusion. 

W. H. 

SATvA {tappa.: Sara). 1. Sarah the wife 
of Abraham (Heb. xi. 11; 1 Pet. iii. 6). 

2. The daughter of Raguel, in the apocryphal 
history of Toliit. As the story goes, she had been 
married to seven husbands, who were all slain on 
the wediling 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 b; 
the " fishy fume," when Sara was married to 
Tobias, are told in chap. viii. 

SARABI'AS (2apa/3/as: Sai-ebias). Shehe- 
BIAH (1 Esdr. ix. 48; comp. Neh. viii. 7). 

SA'RAH (n"jb, princess: 2d^^a: Sara 

originally ^'^'^ '■ 2apa: Sara'i). 1. The wife of 
Abraham and mother of Isaac. 


Of hei birth and pareutafje we have no certain 
Bccount in Scripture. Her name is first introduced 
hi Gen. xi. 2'J, as follows: " Abrani and Nahor 
toolv them wives : the name of Abram's wife was 
Sarai; and the name of Nalior'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, § G) and by 
St. Jerome ( Quasi. 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 sailed Abraham's -'brother" in Gen. xiv. 1-1, 16. 
Judging from the fact that Rebekah, the grand- 
daughter of Nahor, was the wife of Isaac the son 
of -Abraham, there is reason to conjecture that 
Abraham was the youngest brother, so that his 
wife might not improbably be younger than the 
wife of Nahor. It is certainly strange, if the tra- 
dition be true, that no direct mention of it is found 
in Gen. xi. 29. But it is not improbable in itself; 
it supplies the account of the descent of the mother 
of the chosen race, the omission of which in such a 
passage is most unlikely ; and there is no other to 
set against it. 

The change of her name from " Sarai " to " Sa- 
rah " was made at the same time that Abram's 
name was changed to Abraham, on the establish- 
ment of the covenant of circumcision between him 
and God. That the name " Sarah " signifies " prin- 
cess " is universally acknowledged. But the mean- 
ing of " Sarai " is still a subject of controversy. 
The older interpreters (as, for example, St. Jerome 
in Qiuest. Hebr., 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." They 

also suppose that the addition of the letter H, as 
taken from the sacred Tetragrammaton Jehovah, to 
the names of Abram and Sarai, mystically signified 
their being received into covenant with the Lord. 
Among modern Hebraists there is great diversity of 
interpretation. One opinion, keeping to the same 
general derivation as tiiat referred to above, 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 rr^ltt? {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 n"lti7, 
a root which is found hi Gen. xxxii. 28, Hos. xii. 
4, in the sense of "to fight," and explains it as 
"contentious" {sireUsiichlii/]. This last seems to 
be etymologically the most probable, and differs 
from the others in giving great force and dignity 
to the change of name. (See Ges. Tlies. 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 marr):igG 
(Oen. xxiv. 67), " Isaac was coniforted after his moth- 
er's death." There is a Jewish tradition, based ap- 
parently on the meutioa of Sarah's death almost im- 

SARAI 2841 

to Canaan, and accompanied him in all the wander- 
ings of his Ufe. Her only independent action is 
the demand that Hagar and Islimael should lie cast 
out, far from all rivalry with her and Isaac; a 
demand, symbolically applied in Gal. iv. 22-31 to 
the dispLacenient of the Old Covenant by the New. ' 
The times in which she plays tlie most important 
part in tlie history, are the times when Aliraham 
was sojourning, first in Egypt, then in Gerar, and 
wliere Sarah shared his deceit, towards Pharaoh 
and towards Abimelech. On the first occasion, 
about the middle of her life, her personal beauty is 
dwelt upon as its cause (Gen. xii. 11-1.5); 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 JMachpelah. Her burial place, purchased 
of E])hron the Hittite, was the only possession of 
Aliraham 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 pointed out opposite to that 
of Abraham, with those of Isaac and Rebekah on 
the one side, and those of Jacob and Leali 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 affection is seen in her touching desire 
for children, even from her bondmaid, and in her 
unforgiving jealousy of that bondmaid, when she 
liecame a mother; in her rejoicing over her son 
Isaac, and in the jealousy which resented the 
slightest insult to him, and forbade Ishmael to 
sh.are 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 command in the last 
case (Gen. xxi. 12). To the same ch.aracter 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 deejjly 
and truly aflfectionate, 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. (n^L!?: 2a/ja; [Vat.i M. Kapa-I Sara.) 
Seraii the daughter of Asher (Num. xxvi. 46). 

SA'RAI [2 syl.] C^lti) [see below]: 2apa: 
S(irai). The original name of S.arah, 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 tm 
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 became Abraham, and the birth of 
Isaac was more distinctly foretold. The meaning 
of the name appears to be, as Ewald has sug- 
■gested, " contentious." [Sarah.] 

SARA'IAS [3 syl.] (:Zapalas: om. in Vulg.). 
1. Seraiah the high-priest (1 Esdr. v. 5). 

2. {'A.(apaiasl Alex. [Aid.] Sapai'os: Azai-ias, 
Aznreus.) Seraiah the father of Ezra (1 Esdr. 
viii. 1; 2 Esdr. i. 1). 

SAR'AMEL ([Rom.] Alex. Sapa^ueA; [Shi. 
and] other MSS. 'Atrapa^eA : Asnrnmd). The 
name of the place in which the assembly of the 
Jews was held at which the high-priesthood was 
conferred upon Simon Maccabajus (1 j\Iacc. 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 Helirew or 
Syriac, from which the present Greek text of the 
Maccabees is a translation. Some (as (.'astellio) 
have treated it as a corruption of .Jerusalem : but 
this is inadmissible, since it is inconceivable that 
BO well-known a name should be corrupted. The 
other conjectures are enumerated Ijy Grimm in the 
Kurzr/ef. exegelisches Handb. on the passage. A 
few only need be named here, but none seem per- 
fectly satisfactory. All appear to adopt the read- 
ing Asarninel. 1. Hnhatsar ,)filln, " the court 
of Millo